Around 2:20 into this clip is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Especially:

“And this is why it bugs me why so many people talk like it’s 1955 and we’re still number one in everything. We’re not! And I take no glee in saying this because I love my country and I wish we were, but when you’re number 55 in this category and number 92 in that one, you look a little silly waving the big foam #1 finger. As long as we believe being the greatest country in the world is a birthright, we’ll keep coasting on the achievements of earlier generations and we’ll keep losing the moral high ground.”

There used to be a good six paragraphs right here, but upon revision they sounded like the rantings of a nutjob. I’ll touch it up and turn it into a legitimate argument in the next couple of days. Until then, I’ll just leave you with Bill Maher.

In an ideal capitalist system, the men at the bottom are the ones who deserve to be there, as it is with the men up top. America is far from an ideal capitalist system. I originally thought that Marx was simply outdated, as he wasn’t really attacking capitalism, but rather the aristocracies. I thought, surely we’ve evolved beyond that. Men are no longer legally restricted from advancing to the higher levels of society. Of course, on second thought, I realized how wrong I was. Though Americans aren’t held down economically by any legal restrictions, our system creates an unintentional nobility. Contrary to common misconception, artistocracy is not the result of true capitalism, but rather the enemy of the capitalist ideal. It promotes laziness, complacency, and above all, the inequality of opportunity. In capitalism, real capitalism, there are classes, and they’re a good and right circumstance, because ideally, everyone deserves to be where they are and can move freely up or down by their own decisions- judged by their own merit, and not by their fathers’. That is, of course, not how it is in America. There is small equality of opportunity between the children of the rich and the poor. Contrary to my opinion of low government spending (don’t worry, I’d cut most welfare programs to compensate a bit for this), I believe that all schooling, including higher education, should be completely free- open to any with the grades and test scores to enter.

Opportunity begins with eduction. The cost of decent schooling is the major obstacle to intelligent children of low-income families, and the most unfair advantage of the incompetent children of the wealthy. Not only that, but education is the greatest investment we can make in our own country. This will open up doors for the poor, rather than closing them for the wealthy (the often fashionable path). Pulling people up instead of dragging them down. By opening doors, you lose the need to close others and infringe on rights and freedoms. Inheritance, for instance, is an issue of property rights of the original earner of the money. Free schooling will eliminate the unfair advantage of the inheritors without eliminating their rights. Will it be expensive? Yes, and of course we don’t want taxes to raise any higher than they are, yet the closer we get to the capitalist ideal, the more “necessary” government-funded programs we can erase. If we are able to make the most of our workforce and if people truly get what they deserve (of course, always retaining the rights of choice- work would never be forced), then we’ll find many, many fewer victims of circumstance. When America finally opens all of the doors and forgets irrational prejudices, all people will be free to do what they feel that they can do best, and are willing to do so, and from this our nation will achieve its greatest potential with happy, free citizens, imbued with a sense of responsibility and industry from their freely provided higher education. From each according to his decision, to each according to his worth- that is the capitalist credo.

How does this new “aristocracy” apply to the developing global market? Well, the ideal is that people get what they deserve. This means, of course, that we can’t protect our own incompetent from more efficient, more willing, and more skilled competition out of some foolish, increasingly outdated notion of nationalism. The society of nations is coming to an end as we come upon the society of the world. Previously, wealth was a pyramid with the American rich at the top, other First World rich below them, American poor below them, and the rest of the world (doctors, academics, specialized workers, intelligent men, industrious men, revolutionary thinking men included) below them. That is simply not just. We feel that Americans have some sort of birthright of superiority, a right to be at the top no matter how hard they work, for merely being born within the United States border. The new pyramid of wealth holds the competent of all nations (if those continue to exist) at the top, and the lazy or cowardly everywhere at the bottom. National governments have a responsibility to create the best for the people they govern, but by what right? Birthright? We have a moral responsibility to the world to provide the deserving contributors of all nations with exactly what they’re worth: the best the world has to offer. The path to wealth should be open to all people, regardless of what border they were born within. Wealth and poverty still exist on a flat playing field, but everyone has an equal shot. This is the new world, the rational and virtuous world, and we must be a part of it.

Capitalism is good. Socialism is evil. Ayn Rand is a saint. Karl Marx is the antichrist. Okay, so that is about my view, but one should always have a reason for what they believe. Only a fool blindly believes something without question. So you’ll never guess what book I checked out today at the library. That’s right, Marx and Engels’ own Communist Manifesto. Though I know what’s said in the pamphlet, I’ve never actually read it. I doubt Marx’s particular choice of words is going to make me forsake the value of the individual, but of course I know that I should never be afraid to read literature opposing my own point of view. Otherwise, how much validity can I possibly give it? Of course, I didn’t just go to the library to antagonize myself. I also picked up a different Karl. Karl Polanyi and his Great Transformation, in which Polanyi argues that democracy and the free market are inextricably linked, and that powerful states need to push to allow the formation of a capitalist system.

Of course, both books are rather outdated and maybe not so relevant to the world of a global market. Marx, however, did predict the global spread of capitalism. He also predicted that this would be the final stage before the workers revolted, bringing on an era of oppression of the unable and unwilling instead of going on into a new age of achievement and virtue. I don’t think Marx used those exact terms, but it’s the same general idea. I hope, for the world’s sake, that he’s wrong- but I’m not sure I have the faith in humanity to wholeheartedly believe that.

Now that we’re beginning to get into the specific ideas of globalization, I’ve started thinking about the big question that I want to write about. What’s important? What do we need to know? What’s worth thinking about? At first, I intended to discuss something very factual, real, researchable, etc. In a world where the foremost competition is for capital, not jobs, our government doesn’t seem to “get it.” They waste their time on mid-term elections and unimportant issues while both companies and investors are leaving for better opportunities overseas. What do American politicians need to do to encourage investors to come back, or at least keep the remaining ones, without restricting them? What happens to our own economy when investors are much more interested in China? If that’s our own fault, how can we fix it? This is all very interesting and important, but nothing new. Then I thought of something a little more interesting- more theoretical- to consider.

As globalization erases national boundaries and increases interaction and collaboration between people in different countries, all over the world, what is the end result? Multinational corporations hold more sway over the world than most governments. It seems that it’s businesses that run our own country. So tell me, how implausible really is the Sovereign State of Microsoft? Is it really that hard to see a world where land is just land, and people pledge their allegiance to a company rather than a border? Right now, yes, it is. It seems sick to us. How could a privatized world be held to any code of law or ethics? My main question is: is this even possible? If it is, could a government of a business administration fighting to protect their employees for the sake of morale and efficiency work just as well, if not better than a government run by taxes, protecting citizens by their birthright?

Of course, there are so many questions, and so many supposed flaws. What’s the universal standard? How is a crime of an employee of Company A against an employee of Company B handled? What about the unemployed? How do people begin new businesses? Law enforcement? Surely there has to be some sort of domestic control. People can’t live on the internet. Could a global, universally capitalist, stable, econocentric society ever possibly work? Rather than talk about what people already know, the answer to this question is what I hope to develop as best I can.

© 2006 The Seattle Times Company

I’m a great advocate of teaching men to fish. That is, as opposed to giving them fish. With few exceptions, any man who does not know how to fish, no matter how many fish he is given, will end up going hungry again. Such is Bill Gates’ insight into the problem of hunger in Africa. True, hunger is only one of the many, many problems in Africa, but you have to start from the ground up. Bill and Melinda Gates, in association with the Rockefeller Foundation, have formed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, aimed at helping Africans improve their farming techniques and technology rather than simply giving them money and food. The purpose is, as Melinda Gates puts it, “…to help millions of the most vulnerable people in Africa lift themselves out of poverty.” Key words? “Lift themselves.” Teaching Africans to fish. No change forced upon a society can have lasting results; they must come to it by their own will and effort. Africans will never rise from hunger and poverty by having food and clothes thrown at them. What we need to give them is the process, not the end result. Africa must develop through their own effort and industry, but we can certainly help them along the way.

We’ve seen most of the world get considerably wealthier over the last decade. Of course the glowing example is China, where what used to be considered wealthy is now common. Africa, however, is a frustrating anomaly. A problem which I, for once, will not declare that capitalism can solve. At least not yet. Even if multinational corporations setting up shop in Africa were to provide wages above sustenance level, economic progress is negligible if your government is corrupt and ineffective at providing a stable banking system and reliable regulatory environment. Nobody saves if inflation and crime are likely to wipe out those savings. Slow progress is no progress if you have civil wars that wipe out the infrastructure every decade.

As much as we’d all love to see the worst African nations become global players, or even be able to grow enough to be considered remotely adequate, the African economy is not the first problem in line, and couldn’t be addressed before the others anyway. The first is hunger- creating food production with substantial local results, so it doesn’t need to be delivered through a broken economy with a corrupt government. Greater crop yields will help the economy when Africa reaches that stage, but right now, people simply need food. The next problems: corruption and violence. I couldn’t even begin to say how we address these problems. If history is any basis for a guess, then once Africa is able to produce more and lift itself further out of poverty, intolerance and violence will begin to decline. Corruption? Well as we’ve seen in Iraq, lasting beneficial changes to a government can’t be forced by foreign powers. The best we can do is support political parties in favor of fair and honest governments and let the people of Africa make that happen themselves. I’m no expert on social or political matters, but I can tell you that with greater production in a stable landscape with a fair and responsible government, economic growth will occur. In many years, African nations may begin to become forces in the global market. However, this is a point which Africans must come to through their endeavor. Until then, the best thing we can do is teach them to fish.

Capitalism in the Former East Berlin, originally uploaded by fboosman.

The wall closing off East Berlin from the world has long since been torn down, and the effects of the entrance of capitalism are very apparent. West and East Berlin provided a vivid portrait of the contrast between capitalism and communism. While West Berlin was a prosperous center of business and trade, East Berlin was a destitute, rubble-filled shell of a city filled with oppressed and frightened people. The difference can be well seen in the difference between the two sides of the Wall: the western side being brightly painted and the eastern side remaining an untouched off-white. When the wall fell and Germany was reunited, not only was East Berlin open to the wealth of West Berlin, but to the wealth of the world. Though, out of tradition, certain socialist philosophers are still honored in Germany, the effects of globalization can be seen as foreign wealth enters Germany and changes eastern Berlin from the squalid wreck it was under communist rule to the bright commercial center it is today.

A common misconception about capitalism is that one man’s gain is another man’s loss. The goal of global capitalism is not to create one dominating super power, but to level the playing field and develop third world countries with first world capital. With the disappearance of oppression in the marketplace, oppression in society will disappear as well. Through international business, social issues are solved. Look at what globalization has done for India and China already. As capitalism spreads through the world and countries develop, people begin to recognize their individual rights and pressure their government to allow them the freedom they need to be successful in business and happy in life. Economic freedom and social freedom go hand in hand. Through the power and influence of international business, governmental oppression will disappear by the will of those who wish to join the world economy.

The simple truth is this: the wealthiest countries have historically been capitalist countries. When people turn to capitalism, their standards of living instantly improve. The beneficial effects of globalization are being demonstrated already in impoverished parts of the world as they become wealthier and their economies become more efficient. Areas where famine once killed so many now have plenty because of the free market and widespread exchange of goods. On that note, ask yourself: how many famines have there been under a capitalist system?

Globalization is inevitable. It is an unstoppable steam train bearing down on the world and one must either choose to be run over by it or ride it into a new era. Our world is undergoing a fundamental change, and anyone who wishes to ride that train must be able to understand how it works and where it’s going. I say a steam train for two reasons. Firstly, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has embedded it in my mind as a symbol of business and virtuous industrialism, which this new era will exalt. Secondly, in the new world we cannot stay where we are, we cannot stay local, we must be moving even as we’re not. The new market is a global one, and though one never actually has to leave home, one must, in some ways, travel to the other side of the world.

The unstoppable steam train creates a rather frightening image, but it really does not need to be. Though the adverse effects on the average American worker are already apparent (i.e. layoffs due to outsourcing), the truth is that globalization is good for the world as a whole. The benefits of a world market can be clearly seen in certain Asian cities and nations, especially in India and China. As Asians find American employment, so too do they find American business theory. Pushes towards capitalism are made, and as a result there are clear improvements in quality of life.

Capitalism inspires two things necessary to any prosperous society: innovation and education. The vast majority of advances in medicine and technology have come out of capitalist countries simply because of the system’s nature. We are constantly competing, ergo constantly innovating. We create businesses, bring capital into the system, create better businesses, build better devices, bring in more capital, and the cycle of advancement continues. Because our society revolves around competition, we are forced to educate and better ourselves to join the game, and the standards get higher every year. Now that we are global, this is unfortunately where the average American will lose out to the Indians or Chinese if dramatic changes are not made.
The global market has no room for anything but excellence. When Asia truly joins the capitalist game in the global arena, it will only be additional competition, and advances will need to be faster and better. We Americans have become complacent with our unchallenged and now rather undeserved place at the top, and unless we regain our industrial spirit, the golden age of capitalism into which the world is entering may ironically be the downfall of America.

All aboard.