Can't remember how I came across Pundita, but I was intrigued by her criticism of a personal hero in the article,"
Milton Friedman doesn't get off the hook just because he's dead."
At Pundita's corner, the discussion is about Phillip Blond's Prospect article, "
Rise of the red Tories." There is seen in Mr Blond's piece a potential for finding a new "middle" for political America. His is a provocative read, but I see only a little of value. I don't find harm in the ability of big business to deliver goods for less than smaller businesses can. Smaller businesses simply won't compete in those pursuits. It's apparent that it takes a great deal of capital to gather foods from around the world and deliver it for local sale. Small capital does road side fruit and vegetable stands, not Argentinian peaches and Australian beef. (Or whatever!) Besides, I think small business is already a natural political ally, and big business - especially because of big labor - has become the natural ally of the Democratic Party.
The other night CNBC aired a speech by the late economist Milton Friedman; during the Q&A he observed that whatever criticism one might have of globalization people had to remember that it had lifted hundreds of millions of people around the globe out of abject poverty.
I interject that when I mentioned his comments in my post of yesterday I wrote that CNBC aired a speech that Mr Friedman had given the other night. I have corrected the error (Milton Friedman died in 2006), but dead or alive he doesn't get off the hook.
His claim about the benefits of globalization was a sweeping statement but if we accept it at face value, what would Mr Friedman say when confronted with an American worker who must compete with the entire world by sitting in commuter traffic four hours a day and working two jobs -- just so he can afford enough in interest payments to make it to the next payday, and who has no hope of climbing out of crushing debt?
Capitalism, which supports globalized trade, is rooted in the profit motive. Would Mr Friedman ask the worker to abandon the linchpin of capitalism so that the rest of the world could climb out of poverty?
Actually, the American worker (and later - the American consumer) has been lifting the world out of poverty since WW2. Then, the US was the only game in town and the American Labor movement could have it's way with management. We've succeeded - finally - in the heavy liftng. If a nation is STILL poor it has been criminally mismanaged.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this all smacks of "I hate Wal-Mart." If what works for conservatives is the priority, then let's leave that logic to the leftists. The poor, for obvious reasons, love Wal-Mart as a place to work and as a place to shop. In my neighborhood, gasoline would cost 25 cents per gallon more if not for the rock bottom price that Wal-Mart (Murphy) charges.
Blond's statement that 73% of Britain's grocery dollars are spent in four chains is hardly frightening to me. They have figured out how to attract shoppers to their shelves, and their suppliers have figured out how to deliver more for less. That's capitalism. It works every time it's tried, and it employs and it disperses goods and services. Capitalism can be difficult as well as ruthless. "The only thing worse is everything else."
But if the point is to find a legislative balance that will provide more local competition to national brands, no sacrifice of principles in that. In Indiana, we've lost most of our local banks to the nationals due to federal changes, and however economical the "scale" seemed to be at the time, the nationals have shown themselves to be less sophisticated as survivalists than the local real estate agent.
Freedom is the point. I liked Blond's historical review liberality from monarchy to individualism, but I still see the Constitution of the US as the most radical document in history. If we legislate against big business, we legislate higher prices, and we impinge on capital formation.
The problems we are facing have a lot to do with incompetent and corrupt legislators of both parties. But if we try to make failure illegal, we will only end up making success much more difficult.
quote
shown
