I'd like to first clarify about the natural reactions of Craig residents: when a person's livelihood is at stake it is only natural that they will come out swinging to protect themselves, their families, and their community. The important thing about a reaction to something is that it should be directed towards a correct target. In this case the federal regulatory laws should be the target. But anybody who has attempted to fight back against a massive bureaucratic machine knows it is nearly impossible for the common person to do so. Thus instead we see them taking a misguided aim at two companies who are "guilty" by a weak association. (Breckenridge Brewery donated a gift card, and New Belgium issued a $9,080 grant for a project in 2008 that had nothing to do with coal litigation.)
Thus the beer boycott is a bit of a stretch, most especially for the Colorado Republican operatives and "free market" advocates. These people know the correct target (i.e., federal regulatory laws). And they likely know that New Belgium's sole purpose for giving the grant to the WildEarth Guardian organization was indeed about protecting Colorado's watersheds. New Belgium's business, and all microbreweries for that matter, depend on clean water for their survival. Furthermore, it is no secret that New Belgium is an environmentally conscious company who has been running unique campaigns about community, clean water, sustainability, solar energy, riding bikes, etc., since their inception. Thus the politicization by a few GOP operatives and "free market" advocates is nothing short of weak theatrics.
Let's start with the irony: The GOP operatives and free market advocates are focusing their message around saving American jobs. New Belgium is killing jobs, they claim - even though this is not actually the truth. So they attempt to politicize a boycott of New Belgium beer, thus possibly jeopardizing American jobs in another sector. In other words, support these American jobs, by killing those American jobs. Certainly ironic if your true intention really is the protection of American jobs...
The double-standards of the "unapologetic free market capitalists": It is nothing short of comical to see these people rush to the defense of the workers. They speak about the "cruelty" of the Left, or their apparent lack of sympathy for American workers, for supporting policies that kill America's coal jobs without any apparent awareness of their own double standards. These free market capitalists often argue for, and support, corporate "free trade" policies that have shuttered over 50,000 U.S. manufacturing factories, resulting in desolate cities across the country and millions and millions of displaced workers. The common response of the free market capitalists to these policies is anything but sympathetic. They say things like, "That's just the workings of market forces - the 'invisible hand.' These workers should have been better prepared." In other words, it is tough crap mentality for these manufacturing workers, and then a sudden surge of sympathy for the coal workers.
But there is something interesting about Adam Smith's invisible hand, and it is a fact that so many who throw around his phrase don't seem to understand (which mainly has to do with the fact that Smith's Wealth of Nations is the most quoted book that nobody ever reads.) If one were to actually read Smith you would quickly discover that he only wrote of the invisible hand one time throughout the entire book. And the context of what he meant by it is by far one of the most misunderstood things.
I will now quote Smith at length to show what he meant by the invisible hand, which can be found in Book 4, Chapter 2 - Of Restraints Upon the Importation From Foreign Countries of Such Goods As Can Be Produced at Home. In this section Smith gets into capital investment. In the first few pages he writes about why protectionism and government interference creates monopolies at home. But a few pages later what you discover is that he would not agree with today's corporate "free trade" policies.
Smith wrote, "Every
individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous
employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage,
indeed, and not that of society, which he has in view. But the study of his own
advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that
employment which is most advantageous to the society. [He is speaking of
society in reference to his own country, England]. First, every individual
endeavours to employ his capital as near as home as he can, and consequently as
much as he can in the support of domestic industry... Thus, upon equal
or nearly equal profits, every wholesale merchant naturally prefers the
home-trade to the foreign trade of consumption, and the foreign trade of
consumption to the carrying trade... The carrying trade, the capital of the
merchant is, as it were, divided between two foreign countries, and no part of
it is ever necessarily brought home, or placed under his own immediate view and
command... the natural residence of such a merchant should [be those foreign
countries]."
"Home
is in this manner the center, if I may say so, round which the capitals of the
inhabitants of every country are continually circulating, and towards which
they are always tending, though by particular causes they may sometimes be
driven off and repelled from it towards more distant employments. But a capital
employed in the home-trade, it has already been shown, necessarily puts into
motion a greater quantity of domestic industry, and gives revenue and
employment to a greater number of the inhabitants of the country, than an equal
capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption. Upon equal, or nearly
equal profits, therefore, every individual naturally inclines to employ his
capital in the manner in which it is likely to afford the greatest support to
domestic industry, and to give revenue and employment to the greatest number of
people of his own country. Secondly, every individual who employs his
capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to
direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest possible
value."
Now,
here is the part about the invisible hand (the only reference he only made to
it):
"By
preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only
his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its
produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is
in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end
which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society
that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes
that of the society [the homeland] more effectually than when he really intends
to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to
trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common
among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from
it."
In other words, Adam Smith was writing about the invisible hand in reference to
preferring the "support of domestic industry" because it helped the country's own security without intending to do so. Those who would invest their capital in a foreign labor force and then import the end-products back home will make a large profit, but this act would be
harmful to their country because it creates
instability and insecurity in the country through unemployment and polarization of wealth. Furthermore, he argued that those who choose to invest their capital in foreign countries, rather than their in homeland, should take up residence in the foreign country.
Thus today's "free market" capitalists, who support and lobby for corporate "free trade" policies, are not even following the economic laws that were laid out by their own thinkers. Second, they need to honestly look at how their policies have caused, by far, the most damage to American workers and the security of this country. Furthermore, their attempts to politicize the false idea that two beer companies are somehow responsible for the loss of coal jobs in Craig, based simply on being "guilty" through a weak association, is irresponsible. Without this self evaluation, the cries of sympathy for American workers by the "unapologetic free market capitalists" just rings hollow and reveals their hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment