Christopher Peter
CORPORATISM, COMPETITION, CHOICE: FIXING THE TRUE ISSUE WITH CAPITALISM
The solution to our economic issues is never a system that consolidates market and social power. Rather our economy greater competition and choice. Many critics of capitalism emote anger in misleading manner, backing an increased presence of an entity driving many of the issues. A major issue with our economy is consolidated market power with lack viability for small business. A more appropriate path forward is reducing the effect of corporatism by encouraging greater competition and new market entrants.
Corporatism is the idea that corporations have more than their fair share of influence on our society, economy, and public policy. Corporations around the world play a major role in societies, employing mass amounts of people, creating wealth, and providing products that directly improve the quality of life of many. Issues can arise when policymakers, who rely on corporate donations for election funding, implement policies that insulate corporate giants from competition and responsibility for actions and externalities. The self-regulating function of free market systems become null and void when consumers lack viable alternatives. Much of the issue are direct results of public policy.
Government relies on market players to aid in shaping regulations and rules of behaviors. Not a partisan practice, but a needed one because of the insight and reach of these organizations. At times, regulations meant to protect consumers can help isolate the firm from competition, as those in the market will already have the infrastructure and compliance in place. Consider the difficulties in competing with public utilities, airlines, or health systems. The barriers of entry keep competition out and eventually raise prices on consumers.
The presence of difficult economic environments also helps drive the problem as market consolidation occurs. During the Obama Era, there was a great level of market consolidation as firms combined to gain scale in search of profitability. Unfortunately, few new entrants came into these markets as little financial incentives existed. The famous rule of three came much faster than anticipated, which states that mature markets eventually become dominated by three participants.
The consolidation of markets, whether through natural monopolies or socialism, is not optimal for positive economic outcomes. Many of the proponents of socialist economic principles overlook the proven flaws of single payer or single provider markets. Instead, they focus one potential short-term benefits, which rarely stand the test of time. Monopolistic industries can produce efficiency through economies of scale. The savings are not always transferred to the consumer, or in the case of public operators, passed on to the citizens.
There are many examples of monopolistic markets in the United States, many of which were purposely created through public policy. For instance, operators of certain forms of transportation are generally protected from competition. Until recently, many public utilities operate in protected markets, providing consumers with one option. If socialist backers were right, these entities would provide consumers with affordable and high-quality services. Instead, customers of government provided services typically face higher prices in the long run, service outages, and lack of freedom to change.
The answer to addressing corporatism is not shifting influence from corporate boardrooms to government bureaucrats. Americans do not desire resource rations, abject poverty, or denial of service, but opportunity and self-determination. Instead, policymakers can combat corporatism and income inequality through implementing policies that expand market competition and choice for consumers and workers. Creating environments where small and medium sized businesses can compete for customers and spread out distribution of profits and income is good for the economy. Consumers benefit from greater choices and enhanced market power.
Consider the impact of market disruptions, especially in the case of companies like Uber. In many metropolitan markets, few taxicab companies dominate markets due to regulatory structures that prevent open competition, leaving many people paying a great deal of money for service they dislike. When Uber and Lyft disrupting the transportation ecosystem in many of these markets, the new competition forced these taxi companies to rethink their operations and the customer service to compete to earn business from consumers. Initially, many of these companies used their influence with policymakers to blunt growth of Uber and Lyft, but consumer demand was high enough to counter the effect. Companies should not utilize closeness with government to protect profitability, which is essential in socialist economies, but compete for consumer dollars by providing value.
The expansion of choice helped provided new opportunities for scholars in public education and higher education. The United States has the most expensive public education system in the world, which is in a constant state of decline. While higher education has greater competition, regulation, and public financing shield leaders from truly competing on a cost basis. The presence of charter and private schools as well as lower cost for-profit institutions create forces for change and better cost propositions. There are some needs to address, but expanding choice helps provide certain students avenues for achieving their educational needs and economic outcomes.
Choice and competition are essential to reducing the impact of corporatism and helping fight income inequality. Public policy that overtly restricts entry to certain markets need to be reviewed to improve access to markets. Quality standards are important, but many regulations are heavily influenced by large market providers. Some protect the market share of these large corporations without any real benefit to consumers. There may be more opportunities to provide temporary exemptions to allow small and medium size businesses to compete.
Government should not decide winners or losers in markets, but, if incentives are needed, these deals should go to entities that need it. Which is fairer? Low tax environments for all businesses or high tax environment with sweetheart tax deals for select businesses? Obviously, the one with that treats all the same. If tax incentives are needed, it should go to small and medium sized businesses to help ensure market competition.
Promoting competition expand choice and consumer market power. The market is more effective in providing customized affordable goods and services than government bureaucrats. In any market, producers will target select customer bases in order to maximize profitability. Not all producers can meet all the needs of customers and customers might not find all market offerings as equal substitutes. Generally, the more choices consumers have the greater likelihood each individual is able to find solutions that meet the needs of their households.
Proponents of single payer health system believe society will be better off is power is shifted from private insurance providers to a centralized government entity. These people are wrong. A one size fit all plan may benefit the government coffers in the short term but will provide great market inefficiencies in the long term. Instead, policymakers should reduce geographic barriers that elevate price and focus on greater transparency and education among patient. There are many areas where health systems provide unnecessary services simply to generate revenue but does not directly improve patient care outcomes.
Corporations do have more than their fair share of influence in our society. That power needs to go back to the people, not shifted to government bureaucrats, who too have too much power. Our vibrant private sector and free market economy provide more opportunity and created more innovation than any government program. Government has its role in society. Let’s keep it limited to what it can do well.
THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR EQUALITY
The United States of America was founded on the principle that all Americans are created equal. All Americans having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the United States has not always lived up to our espoused values. In our past, many have found their right to life, liberty, and happiness impeded by hate and discrimination. Still today, racism and other forms of discrimination stand in the way of many people’s access to our fundamental social promises and their personal paths toward freedom.
Our nation’s diversity is one of greatest strengths along with our fundamental belief in self-reliance, self-determination, and freedom. Americans must find a way to get past our superficial differences regarding race, gender, religion, or other personal demographics and focus on expanding opportunity to all striving for it. Cultural diversity along with intellectual diversity allows our society to attract the best and brightest from around the world and within our own communities. Our economy benefits when all can access our free market economy, thus reducing government dependence. Our elected officials need to find a balanced way to allow all Americans their rightful access to economic and social freedom.
One cannot deny that racism and other forms of discrimination still exist in our society. Even in many blue states, there are some that believe race, gender, and demographics rightfully dictate outcomes and opportunity. Some people honestly believe that non-whites and women lack the intellectual ability to compete. Conversely, some minorities unfairly cast every white person as racist. Racism played a major role in economic disparities, but it will not help solve the issues.
There is a falsehood that identity politics will solve our issues with race and gender. Instead of repeating mistakes of associating only with people that look, act, speak, pray, and think like us, Americans must seek to understand those differences, which can present opportunities. Embracing diversity can connect people with new markets, employee pools, and investment opportunities. Despite some differences, many in society have shared values and similar needs. Appreciate differences each person can bring and unite around of shared perspectives.
All groups in our society struggles with the confines of groupthink, adhering to preconceived ideals passed on from generations. Rather, people must add their own experiences and learning to that equation. There may be reasons for someone feeling a certain way about another group, but that sentiment needs not to automatically carry on to the next generation. At some point the cycle must break. All sides have room to improve in this area.
The challenging question for policymakers is how to facilitate a move forward. Initially, there was a need in implementing preferential programs, but there is a need to modernize approaches. While programs helped, there still lacks adequate pipelines of talent, as many potential individuals do not pursue programs or the fields with such programs. A greater focus needs to be reducing disparities in skill training, where education quality is determined by geographic location. Government should not remain in the business of picking winners and losers but can help ensure its functions provide equal access to skill development regardless of demographics.
All Americans deserve equal opportunity to find success, based upon their own ambition, effort, and persistence. Allow all people the ability to determine their own level of success. Greater equality can positively impact our economy, as subgroups largely dependent on social programs can become productive contributors to our free market economy. As stated in Expanding Economic Opportunities, many communities have untapped potential for economic growth and prosperity for residents. The political dogma and environments need some alterations in order to improve the attractiveness and preparedness to take advantage of opportunity.
There are many areas in our society that could benefit from a change of dogma. Many crime ridden and economically depressed areas need to reshape their political thinking to better improve the future prospects for residents living in their neighborhoods. The most effective social program one can provide another person is a job, which can help promote economic freedom. Policy changes in these communities is essential to help attract investment to spur job creation to set these areas towards greater opportunity and better social outcomes in the future. Unfortunately, many of the leaders focus more on maintaining their own political power then the outcomes of their residents.
The path forward should be expanding access to economic opportunities to communities that are not normally at the forefront of Wall Street. Revitalization of these areas can have a long-term positive effect on crime reduction as well as lower the cost of welfare programs, criminal justice institutions, and government dependence. There will be a need to invest in infrastructure improvements, education structure, and community safety. Eventually, the focus needs to be developing a pool of local investors that can sustain it in the future. Expanding free markets and empowering the people will go much further than empowering the government over the people.
Despite some setbacks, society has made real progress on race relations and discrimination compared to generations ago. But those achievements are fleeting if progress is yielded because people are not truly given equal opportunity. Government should not dictate outcomes but give all an equal chance at success. That only happens if society expands economic opportunity to those groups previously ignored.