I have watched the current trend of some calling for Capitalism to be replaced by Socialism. This is a curious development since they are both the same thing. "Capital" is a generic term. It simply refers to an accumulation of resources that is used to create a supply for a perceived need. These resources take many forms and include money, ideas, land, proprietary technological inventions. Even the energy to develop the supply of the product or service could be called "capital".
The real issue in this discussion is who should control the capital and the subsequent creation of the product or service: should the government own this process or should the individuals who came up with the idea own the process?
As a clear-eyed seeker of wisdom and truth, it seems self evident that the government (which, by definition, produces nothing) is ill equipped to control the creative process which has resulted in the vast wealth of America. The primary reason this is true is the risk factor which drives all of wealth creation, is missing from the government's formula. Success is not a requirement for the government in the enterprise. History is littered by the failures of government sponsored enterprises.
In the case of Solyndra, ( manufacturer of solar energy products), for example, the company was formed and supported by millions of government dollars on the premise that solar energy was needed to replace oil as a major energy source since, as everybody knows, oil and coal are wreaking havoc on the environment by causing global warming. While the purpose may well have been noble, the product being made was unreliable, very expensive to produce and not demanded by anybody.
Any capitalist worth his salt would never have invested his capital in such a venture. Yet the government went in and wasted millions of dollars and suffered no consequences whatsoever.
What does all of this mean?
Competition in a free market breeds opportunity for all of the players. It spawns creative ideas, forces efficiency, forces cost reductions, improves product reliability and features all of which not only benefit the consumer, but also increase the profitability of the investor. None of these forces exist in a government-run enterprise!
A perfect example is found in the "universal health care" idea.
The argument goes something like this: All Americans (and probably many non-Americans) should be able to get heath care if they need it . Good health is a right and not a privilege.
One must ask, then, how such a system could be configured to provide such a service? There is unquestionably a demand for health care. Therefore a careful analysis would have to be made as to what this would look like.
The private capitalist would try to devise a way that all participants in the health care would pay for the service. He then would craft a plan which he thinks could be worth the risk. Notice that the capitalist is not factoring the political element in his calculation since it cannot be assessed.
The government, on the other hand, would not factor the cost, but only the prospect that people would have that the need would be filled. The people who were promised "free" services would be encouraged to vote for those politicians promising it. The end result would be that quality health care would gradually disappear altogether.
I urge you, seekers, keeping the nation's capital in private hands is the very best way to insure that our goods and services remain in abundance and of highest quality.
