Wednesday, June 7, 2023
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting
Best Retirement Wishes
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Top News
No Result
View All Result
Best Retirement Wishes
Home Economy

Producers Should Reject Calls to “Give Back”

by
January 24, 2023
in Economy
0
Producers Should Reject Calls to “Give Back”
0
SHARES
10
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

On the dedication page of Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto, we find these words:

“To my supporters: I have never been more humbled and honored than by your selfless devotion to freedom and the Constitution.”

Related posts

Market Masculinity: The Bourgeois Ideal of Capitalist Manhood

Market Masculinity: The Bourgeois Ideal of Capitalist Manhood

June 6, 2023

Thanks to Sanctions, the US Is Losing Its Grip on the Middle East

June 6, 2023

The modifier “selfless” is intended as a moral tribute. Imagine instead if he had written “selfish.” How would that go over?

What are the facts? Can we really say that people who fight for freedom are acting in self-denial? Wouldn’t freedom be an infinitely better condition to live under than the controlled society we now have or the totalitarian slave state we’re edging toward? And if this is true, wouldn’t it be correct to say Paul’s supporters act in their conscientious self-interest, and therefore their support should be considered selfish?

So why didn’t he use that word?

As authors Yaron Brook and Don Watkins argue in their stimulating book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government, it is the widespread inability to affirm the self that accounts for the continuing decline of freedom. And since political freedom implies economic freedom, traditional selfless morality becomes capitalism’s greatest enemy.

The Triumph of Greed?

When the financial crisis arrived in 2007–2008, capitalism’s enemies had no trouble spotting whom they believed were the culprits: greedy businessmen and speculators. Once again, the government had trusted them with freedom, and once again their insatiable greed brought the economy to its knees. But Brook and Watkins point out what should be obvious, that freedom in economic affairs had been increasingly restricted for decades:

Because the conventional view of selfishness remained entrenched, it was not the “public servants” in Washington who took the blame. . . .

The true lesson of the financial crisis is exactly the opposite of what the pundits concluded. The conventional view is that the free market failed. In fact, it was the unfree market that failed, and it is more freedom that is the solution.

As they tell us later while discussing soaring healthcare costs:

It’s no accident that we don’t have a computer crisis, or a hair salon crisis, or a veterinary crisis. Nor is it an accident that we did have a housing and financial crisis. Along with housing and finance, medicine is one of the most regulated industries in the United States. (emphasis added)

But wait—Bernie Madoff was selfish, was he not? He was trusted and left free to gain as much money as he could, which for him meant cheating his clients through an elaborate Ponzi scheme. Could it not be argued that the combination of freedom and selfishness cost his clients billions?

Ask almost anyone to name an example of a selfish person, and Madoff becomes a prime candidate. “To be selfish is to be like Madoff,” the authors write, “to screw anyone, even family and friends, in order to get more, more, more for me, me, me. Madoff is just the latest poster boy for the evil of selfishness.”

But there’s a problem with this portrayal of selfishness—it includes people who don’t swindle others to get ahead. It includes people who make a lot of money by producing goods that others value. It includes people like Steve Jobs, “who was routinely derided as selfish” and was condemned for focusing on profit rather than philanthropy. A 2006 column in Wired put it more bluntly: Jobs was “nothing more than a greedy capitalist who’s amassed an obscene fortune. It’s shameful,” adding that “he skates away from the responsibilities that come with great wealth and power.”

Brook and Watkins reject this analysis:

Does it really make sense to equate producers like Jobs with criminals like Madoff—to accuse them of the same dark motive and the same moral crime (in spirit, if not in scale)? One creates wealth; the other steals it. One thrives by trading with other people; the other destroys the lives of everyone he touches. One works incredibly hard to build a product or company he can be proud of; the other spends his time trying to cover up the fact that he has nothing to be proud of.

Anyone who takes the time to look at how businesses actually succeed will find, in most cases, “not ruthless exploitation but mutually beneficial production and trade; an Apple economy, not a Madoff economy.”

This view of trade runs counter to the conventional notion of trade as a zero-sum (win/lose) game. Yesterday, I bought groceries at a local supermarket. If trade is a zero-sum game, then one of us lost. I came home with the groceries I wanted, and the supermarket had the money it wanted—a win/win exchange. What we each gave up in trade, we gave up voluntarily. I didn’t have to settle on that supermarket; I could have gone elsewhere. No one forces the supermarket to stay in business; if it can’t make a profit, it will close. Right now, it’s mutually beneficial for me to shop there and for the store to stay open.

In this sense, each of us was pursuing his own rational self-interest, what Ayn Rand defined as selfish. The store doesn’t sell groceries under cost as a matter of charity, nor do I shop there to do it a favor.

Should the supermarket do more than offer goods I want at prices I can afford? Should it be “skating” toward other goals that the “right” people regard as its “social responsibilities”?

To get them to swallow the idea that it’s their duty to serve and sacrifice, the altruistic push for corporate “social responsibility” has taught businessmen that their choice is either some monomaniacal focus on the “bottom line”—one that involves ignoring many of the factors that determine a company’s bottom line—or a mawkish pursuit of a “service” agenda. . . .

Any company that achieves productive success [such as my local supermarket or Apple] should self-confidently reject calls to “give back.” It created wealth—it has nothing to atone for.

As the authors conclude, “the path to profits is paved in principle,” not chicanery or crime—something the skaters of this world will likely never understand.

Previous Post

Here I am announcing on twitter that Free Market Daily posts everything stupid thing that we post

Next Post

“Your Investing Foundation” dot com is going to investigate how they steal our stupid posts

Next Post
“Your Investing Foundation” dot com is going to investigate how they steal our stupid posts

"Your Investing Foundation" dot com is going to investigate how they steal our stupid posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

RECOMMENDED NEWS

Empty Malls and Shopping Centers: How Government Fuels Malinvestments

Empty Malls and Shopping Centers: How Government Fuels Malinvestments

4 months ago
The Impossibility of Equality

The Impossibility of Equality

3 months ago

Why Economic Stimulus Can’t Work

5 months ago
Summer Fellowship 2024

Summer Fellowship 2024

4 days ago

BROWSE BY CATEGORIES

  • Economy
  • Editor's Pick
  • Stock
  • Top News
Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

POPULAR NEWS

  • How Can We Restore Freedom and Sound Money in the US and the UK? Some Ideas

    How Can We Restore Freedom and Sound Money in the US and the UK? Some Ideas

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • How not to answer the question “Why are carbon taxes unpopular with policymakers and politicians?”

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • I went to 2+ climate change sessions at the ASSA meetings

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Just Say No to the New Forever War

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Biden versus Bastiat

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Disclaimer

BestRetirementWishes.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively "The Company") do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Recent News

  • Market Masculinity: The Bourgeois Ideal of Capitalist Manhood
  • Thanks to Sanctions, the US Is Losing Its Grip on the Middle East
  • Biden Administration Doubles Down on Costly “Buying American” Mandates

Category

  • Economy
  • Editor's Pick
  • Stock
  • Top News

Recent News

Market Masculinity: The Bourgeois Ideal of Capitalist Manhood

Market Masculinity: The Bourgeois Ideal of Capitalist Manhood

June 6, 2023

Thanks to Sanctions, the US Is Losing Its Grip on the Middle East

June 6, 2023
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting

© 2021 BestRetirementWishes. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Email Whitelisting
  • Home 1
  • Privacy Policy
  • suspicious-engagement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Thank You

© 2021 BestRetirementWishes. All Rights Reserved.