Capitalism: A Possible Sea Change

Recs

90

Be A Motley Fool Millionaire!

David Gardner's top pick took an epic run of 1,334%! See what he’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

Those of you who read The Economist may have noticed a change in the business section -- and for that matter, a possible change in the direction of the magazine’s general philosophy.

There used to be a column called “Face Value,” in which business leaders and global tycoons were discussed and analyzed. Not too long ago, that column changed; now it is called “Schumpeter,” and it discusses a broad array of business and management topics.

OK, so what’s the big deal?
Joseph Schumpeter was a Moravian-born economist who eventually landed at Harvard in the late 1920s. He did have a few famous publications, including History of Economic Analysis and Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. But why name an entire column in one of the most prominent news publications after this somewhat obscure academic? After all, there are plenty of brilliant economists (John Maynard Keynes, David Hume, and Adam Smith) and plenty of business leaders (Jack Welch, Lee Iacocca, and Walter Disney) who could have topped the list. So who the heck is this Schumpeter guy?

The Harvard professor was known not so much for his teachings, but for having a devout following of students and academics who respected his unique thoughts on business, innovation, and market theory. In the United States, in a period of wartime productivity during which companies like General Electric (NYSE: GE) and Boeing (NYSE: BA) experienced extraordinary growth, Schumpeter had incredible foresight (albeit wrapped in a degree of slight contradiction). He disagreed with Keynes. He favored Turgot, not Smith. He valued commerce, yet empathized with Marx. In hindsight, Schumpeter’s ideas seem even more exceptional today, put forth as they were during a time when the veil of a cold war kept capitalism relatively free from criticism. Simply put, Schumpeter was different, and that distinctiveness is what made him one of the most prophetic economists of our time.

Schumpeter and capitalism
Business and free markets have been attacked and demonized for quite some time. In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, a novel chronicling the plight and poverty of workers in Chicago’s meatpacking district. Engels and Marx laid out the problems of capitalism in their 1848 manuscript The Communist Manifesto. And even the Dalai Lama has expressed ethical criticisms about the modes of capitalism.

The tale continues today, as filmmaker Michael Moore’s documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, recently released in theaters, condemns companies like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Wal-Mart. Some criticism is valid, some is just populist anger.

However, Schumpeter seems to get capitalism right in four of the most important spheres:

  1. Objective: Being a champion of business, he knew that the ultimate point of capitalism was not to produce goods and services solely for the rich, but rather to make those goods and services more accessible to the masses. Nevertheless, he warned of man’s desire to build “private kingdoms” (see Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial) and of men who were willing to do anything to gain and win market share (for example, Jeffrey Skilling of Enron).
  2. Path: Schumpeter argued that innovation was the most significant engine of economic growth. Similar to Clayton Christensen, the author of The Innovator's Dilemma who recently spoke at the Fool, he believed in “creative destruction” -- in fact, he coined the phrase. Creative destruction is when entrepreneurs innovate and, through radical change, push out old business models and monopolies. Notable examples today would be Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) disrupting Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS), or Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) destabilizing Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI). While innovation destroys the value of long-established companies, it helps sustain long-term growth. In one of his most famous phrases, Schumpeter likened capitalism to a “perennial gale of creative destruction.”
  3. Leadership: As innovation served as the main engine of growth, Schumpeter argued that an entrepreneur was its main driver. His definition was not limited; it included both small and large businesses, middle managers and college dropouts. The ultimate goal of a leader was to move resources from the least productive places to the most productive -- all with the ambition of spreading mass affluence.
  4. Result: Schumpeter also believed that free enterprise would collapse under the weight of its own success. Unlike Marx, who warned against a proletariat revolution, Schumpeter believed that a new class of “intellectuals” and “bureaucrats” would bring down the system. He warned that successful businessmen would always try to scheme and plot with politicians in order to ensure the status quo. In a non-political way, Schumpeter argued that democratic majorities, frustrated with corporatism, would vote for the creation of a welfare state and place too many burdens on entrepreneurship that would eventually wreck the structure of capitalism.

Something rich and strange
It is obviously far too early to make a call on whether Schumpeter’s conclusion will prove truthful, and far be it from me to speculate on the outcome.

But I am happy to see that someone -- in this case, the private shareholders and writers for The Economist -- is openly acknowledging the problems of capitalism without political motivations or destructive intentions. Just as people begrudgingly said that communism was good in theory but bad in practice, well, that statement can apply to any concept of markets -- especially when implemented without caution and discretion. In the wake of corporate scandals and excessive consumer materialism, let’s not lament the resulting financial collapse, but look at business through the old lens of a Moravian student and economist. The allocation of capital. The distribution of goods and services. Relative ease, not relative riches.

“Make Big Money With Options” Motley Fool CFO Ollen Douglass recently made over $100,000 buying options on 7 well known stocks. Now we’re committed to turning his small fortune into a massive one! And we want you to join us! Enter your email address to hear more:

What do you think of Schumpeter’s take on capitalism? Let me know in the comments section below.

Fool contributor Jordan DiPietro doesn’t own any shares mentioned above, but is a huge fan of both Keynes and Smith (not to mention tofu and cheeseburgers). Amazon.com and Netflix are both Motley Fool Stock Advisor selections. Wal-Mart is an Inside Value pick. The Fool has a strictly nonpartisan disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Turfscape wrote:

    Thank you for this summary look at Schumpeter. Insightful and informative.

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 7:13 PM, foolishdoubler wrote:

    seems to me the old guy was pretty prophetic. we always need to remember that capitalism has made us the richest and strongest country in the world. it has also raised the standard of living for all of our people. hope it never goes away in place of a welfare state. Margaret Thatcher said "socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 7:38 PM, ET69 wrote:

    Nice article with good summary. I'd like to see more like it.

    I beg to differ with foolishdoubler. We are not the 'richest' country in the world. Many nations have a higher standard of living.I would also disagree that capitalism has "raised the standard of living for all of our people". These are myths. Lets be acurate here

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Dannysea wrote:

    Makes me think...

    Who is this "new class of 'intellectuals' and 'bureaucrats' ?" Or is this halftime and what is going on is only chatter while watching a "ra-ra" band? --Soon off the field and on with the game!

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 8:34 PM, xetn wrote:

    It would be much better to look at the Austrian school of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murry N. Rothbard to name just a few. Mises's work developed the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle which has predicted every major recession/depression since. Hayek, a contemporary of Keynes and a big critic won the Nobel Prize for his work. (Later, Keynes agreed with Hayek's criticism of his own work). Rothbard was very prolific and wrote about free markets, ethics, and sound money.

    Notable books:

    Mises's Human Action

    Hayek's Road to Serfdom

    Rothbard's Mystery of Banking, Man, Economy and State, and What Has Government Done to Our Money, America's Great Depression.

    I believe that all of these books are available for free at Mises.org.

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 3:07 AM, WyattJunker wrote:

    The only nations that have a higher standard of living than the US are the Arab oil states like Dubai and Kuwait which are very much like indian casinos whereby they dole out their precious gas money onto newborns' heads in a collective co-op. And as far as innovation goes, it never would have happened if it weren't for the likes of the Halliburtons of the world.

    No, there aren't many countries with higher standards of living than the US unless you move the goal posts and redefine it to mean something else entirely such as leisure time and social welfare benefits, both of which mean higher taxes, ie slavery.

    The only way you can therefore compare this nation to nation is then to look squarely at GDPs of which no country can compare to the US. Perhaps in growth rates(and then only until recently), but not in actual numeric where we are of another world entirely.

    Let's try to be as accurate as possible here.

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 9:53 AM, jesse2159 wrote:

    The question isn't so much why the rich nations do so well in good times as well as bad times. The question is why some contries never do well, like ever. Want to know where growth is: follow the instincts and trail of the illegal immigrants. No one is sneaking into Mexico.

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 10:09 AM, kgeechee wrote:

    I did not see any 'free' books, but I did see the this organization is based in Auburn, AL. Is there anyone, anywhere who knows of anything good that comes out of Auburn, AL?

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 11:57 AM, dencurrob wrote:

    I so appreciate MF's balanced approach to economy and the inherent philosophies. It is so exasperating to endure the bully pulpits of the Larry Kudlows that make me ashamed of following the market. Please keep informing those of us who have not yet frozen our minds.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 2:33 AM, JustEconist wrote:

    Great column! Thank you Jordan for introducing us to some great thinkers....

    More recently the great management guru Peter Drucker also raised doubt about capitalism:

    "The story of Peter Drucker is the story of management itself. It's the story of the rise of the modern corporation and the managers who organize work. Without his analysis it's almost impossible to imagine the rise of dispersed, globe-spanning corporations.

    But it's also the story of Drucker's own rising disenchantment with capitalism in the late 20th century that seemed to reward greed as easily as it did performance. Drucker was sickened by the excessive riches awarded to mediocre executives even as they slashed the ranks of ordinary workers. And as he entered his 10th decade, there were some in corporations and academia who said his time had passed. Others said he grew sloppy with the facts. Meanwhile, new generations of management gurus and pundits, many of whom grew rich off books and speaking tours, superseded him. The doubt and disillusionment with business that Drucker expressed in his later years caused him to turn away from the corporation and instead offer his advice to the nonprofit sector. It seemed an acknowledgment that business and management had somehow failed him."

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961001....

    **Did you know that Peter Drucker was once a student of Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter:

    "When Hitler organized his first Nazi meeting in Berlin in 1927, Drucker, raised a Protestant, was in Germany, studying law at the University of Frankfurt. He attended classes taught by Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter."

    From:

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961001....

    And accoroding to Jack welsh :

    "The world knows he was the greatest management thinker of the last century," Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric Co. (GE ), said after Drucker's death."

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961001....

    It is time to learn from mistakes and evolve the capitalist system (or replace it as M. Moore says) which can better serve the people of our country and the whole world, this can be done if the kind of people who gave us all this magical technological advances put their (humanistic) mind to it.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 2:02 PM, sshkop wrote:

    A very good article. Thank you.

    Disagree with that popular notion that "Socialism is great in theory but bad in practice". Socialism is also a bad theory - always has been. Bottom line is that when a theory is based on a foolish notion that an all-encompassing equality is possible and it’s just a matter of figuring out how to get there - all related conclusions and recommendations become invalid.

    It does not take a genius in hindsight to see that socialism as an ideology is bad for individuals, states, cultures and civilizations. The last 100 years of history prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    The fact that the Western civilization is either still toying with aspects of that ideology and even proclaims socialism to be the next logical step in the societal evolution is a pure experiment in putting hope over experience.

    Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and now Michael Moore are wrong and what's more important - they could never be right. Inequality is a fact of life that starts with biology and continues through circumstances of our lives. None of these can be controlled - thus we cannot control the outcome of talent, ambition, ability, etc...

    Capitalism works generally because it is rooted in the recognition of differences from individual to individual and is able to adjust and regulate risk, effort and reward equitably and naturally. The system is flexible, it is just (or as just as anything can ever be) and is self-regulating. That is also the reason for Socialism/Communism being nothing more than a Utopia - it lacks all of these attributes.

    The Result section is talking about exactly what has been going on for the last 40-50 years. Look at Europe and the US. I read the Economist and the magazine constantly laments the bureaucracy, red tape and resultant inflexibility associated with European economy (finance, labor, innovation, etc..). They see that as one of the biggest obstacles to improving lives and to progress in general. And of course they are right. In effect, much of Europe ceased to be a classic capitalist society decades ago with the creation of the welfare state. Welfare state was inspired by socialist ideas and once again, serves as proof of socialists' fallacies.

    And now, we are jumping into the same cesspool of failed practices, failed ideology and miserable results. The fact that we are driven by good intentions is irrelevant.

    Schumpeter's conclusions are entirely consistent with the historical cycles of rise and fall of civilizations. Basically, they all fall due to internal causes, be it a fat and lazy unwillingness to defend itself from external pressures, or like what Schumpeter suggested - self-defeating decision-making by the democracy to dismantle a system that brought us thus far and replace it with something else. Only in this case, the new system is the same old, tires, failed and always doomed to fail Socialism.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 2:05 PM, jm7700229 wrote:

    As I've said before, Michael Moore is very intelligent, uneducated and ignorant. He is no more capable of understanding capitalism (of which he is a major league beneficiary) than was Karl Marx, a member of a failed family of minor aristocrats embittered by his lack of success in gaining a government sinecure.

    I agree with the Schumpeter's longer term prediction. Increasing affluence produces an increasingly large population of unproductive overhead workers who fail to recognize the source of their freedom. Of course, as has already been recognized in Europe, there are limits to the government's ability to support everyone. This caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, but communication and the ease of competition will prevent the pendulum from swinging that far this time.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 2:17 PM, sshkop wrote:

    jm7700229, competition and communication can be a factor, unless governments act to retard their effects. As one can plainly see - governments are already acting: from moving 15% of GDP to the Feds balance sheet (Healthcare reform), to manipulating currencies (china), to tariffs (chinese tires), to Carbon taxes in the name of a non-existent global warming problem... All of these impede competition and will retard its effects.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 9:13 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    The key phrase is "successful businessmen would always try to scheme and plot with politicians in order to ensure the status quo."

    Those who support capitalism without regulation ignore the fact that unless blocked by a more powerful entity, those who have great economic power will invariably take actions to eliminate competition and permanently cement their advantage. This is not theory - there are countless examples of the phenomenon throughout human history.

    Effective government regulation is the only hope of the entrepreneur.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 9:14 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    The key phrase is "successful businessmen would always try to scheme and plot with politicians in order to ensure the status quo."

    Those who support capitalism without regulation ignore the fact that unless blocked by a more powerful entity, those who have great economic power will invariably take actions to eliminate competition and permanently cement their advantage. This is not theory - there are countless examples of the phenomenon throughout human history.

    Effective government regulation is the only hope of the entrepreneur.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 1:36 AM, joseph109 wrote:

    @ JustEconist: thanks for pointing out Peter Drucker

    who was like Schumpter Austrian. (btw. Schumpter

    was minister for finance in Austria after the fall of

    Habsburg Monarchy, the lost war, for a short time

    after 1918. Schumpter experienced a full blown

    war inflation, the irrationalities of politics, and more.

    Inflation should become his life-time obsession.)

    Drucker wrote a very lucid to read book:

    Adventures of a bystander (1979), with chapters of

    people he came across over a longer period of time,

    beginning with one of his teachers in Austria.

    Or, he mentions how he met a Nazi in Germany and

    what this guy tells him, before the war. What the

    Nazi had in mind became indeed reality later on.

    And what should not be forgotten to mention in

    such a context is the famous video with Peter

    Schiff and the lot of other financial experts, pundits,

    in 06/07, before the crash. This little 10 minute

    video gives an impressive insight. (It's interesting

    the Economist did not mention that video.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 3:59 AM, joandrose wrote:

    SSHKOP - totally agree with your summation.

    - an aspect you don't address however is the " unacceptable face of capitalism " as Maggie Thatcher put it. Obscenely large bonuses and pay packages awarded for both achievement - and non achievement - are not acceptable . This failing with uncontrolled capitalism - excessive human greed - needs to be kept in check by some limiting formula or legislative "cap".

    ....... thoughts on this ?"

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 8:31 AM, sshkop wrote:

    Thanks joandrose...A few thoughts.

    Any legislative caps on pay/bonuses requires government fiat and that in itself is a much bigger problem for our economy and society than unjustified bonuses. There is a saying in Russian - whoever pays for the music - orders the music. Once a business is told by the government how it must run its business (labor policies, compensation, location, carbon issues, etc...) - it will never cease and that meddling is the red tape that entrepreneurs and the larger economy should be eliminated as much as possible, even at the cost of a few excesses. Degree of the Government involvement is directly proportional to diminished liberty, including the liberty of how/where/when to run a business (grow the economy, provide jobs, feed ones family, et..).

    In the context of the present crisis, bonuses were a non-factor in either triggering or defining the depth of it. Relatively few people received a lot of money, which represents a small fraction of 1% of the GDP.

    When governments of all levels already “own” 25-30% of GDP, pointing to a “problem” that represents <1% of all economic activity as the root cause – it somewhat disingenuous.

    In my view, the whole issue was conjured up by politicians to redirect attention from their own actions in providing the seeds for it in the 90s and their own corrupt interests in Fannie and Freddie Mae. That also happens to be a viable political tool to get elected - class warfare has always been.

    In other words - whatever one may define as excessive greed (which will vary from person to person of course) was not the cause of the crisis, but political purposes coupled with the power of the governmental fiat and multiplied by normal market forces that adjusted and tried to extort as much profit from the situation as possible.

    Capitalism is always controlled by many forces - competition, demand, supply, personal morality, reputation, history, etc...Other systems can only be controlled from above, which inevitably leads to a much larger failure and corruption than anything that a capitalist system can ever come up with.

    We already have tons and tons of legislation controlling practically every aspect of economic activity and that did not prevent the crisis. Reason? Its causes were not capitalistic in nature, but legislative/governmental and now our politician are telling us to give them more power.

    I think it would be foolish to do so :)

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 12:26 PM, atthelakejim wrote:

    I don't see this new column as a change in direction for the Economist. They are consistently European in their reporting--that's why I suscribe. They are left of center in everything they report and sometimes far left.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 12:44 PM, sshkop wrote:

    They are often inconsistent as a publication. In one article you will find a call for more regulation and limits imposition on financials or healthcare or carbon and in the next they will talk about how important liberalization of economic governance and elimitation of red tape is to keep growth intact. On one hand they want "good jobs" and on the other - promoting labor flexibility in hiring and firing practices.

    I guess it depends on who is actually writing a given article.

    Otherwise, i agree - i dont see a "sea change" either.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 11:18 PM, jfrajkor wrote:

    Schumpeter's analysis of capital is the typical academic one which bears small resemblance to the real word. The idea that capitalists are motivated by the desire to move resources into more productive fields from less productive makes no sense when you realize that like Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and lately the undoubtedly fervent capitalists who ran AIG, GM, Lehman Brothers, etc., are motivated ONLY by the desire to rake in as many resources for themselves as possible. The method of importance is marketing, not production.

    If that involves a productive product, well and good. If it involves Windows ME and Windows Vista --godawaful products that can be marketed and more productive ones crushed by various means -- that is what will happen. The product does not even have to be real --- did Schumpeter ever think of "derivatives"? Which made lots of capitalists rich?

    How did the capitalists in American auto production react when Volkswagen (fat, ugly, small,cheap) entered the market? By producing something like it, only better? No. By marketing "longer, lower, wider" etc., and laughing outright at the government-sponsored (Hitler's 'people's car) product, which strangely enough happened to be a more productive use of resources.

    The Nobel prize-winning economists who ran Long-term Capital Management ... good capitalists? Productive use of resources?

  • Report this Comment On October 21, 2009, at 9:40 PM, neil777 wrote:

    "Lets try to be accurate here." I don't know... I've been to other countries and based on those experiences I'd say the Dutch, the French, the Germans all live pretty well. You don't see the extreme poverty that we have here. And you see plenty of BMWs and Mercedes.

  • Report this Comment On October 21, 2009, at 10:22 PM, mhonarvar wrote:

    being the "richest strongest country" isnt everything...

    the us ranks

    50th in life expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...

    13th on the UN's Human developement index

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve...

    18th on the UN's education index

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

    6th in countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

    But I will give you the nod for biggest military budget...at roughly the same amount as the rest of the world combined.

  • Report this Comment On October 22, 2009, at 5:58 AM, LearnedGoose wrote:

    >Is there anyone, anywhere who knows of anything >good that comes out of Auburn, AL?

    Bo Jackson.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Cetamura wrote:

    I totally agree with Schumpeter. It's already happening. As population grows ( should I say explodes?) around the world there are more and more intellectuals and burocrats pushing for a less liberal form of capitalism.

    It's in their interest and they are grabbing the opportunity with gusto. As a sample of what's coming, just look at Europe. In a matter of 2 generations a humungous stucture has been built which costs about 20 % of all internal European GDP ( that's what the average VAT is and most Europeans don't know that it is mostly spent to maintain it).

    There's also no doubt in my mind that we are eventually ending with a worldwide dictatorship by the same class of intellectuals and bureaucrats.

    And watch for VAT to be introduced next year. It will initially be low/acceptable ( 6%? 7?) and will reach 20% in regular increments avor less than a decade.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2009, at 1:28 PM, sheltonclan wrote:

    Socialism was already tried in this country - way back at the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Read William Bradford to see how men would not work when the results were to be split equally among the families. It was only when the labor of each man became of direct benefit to him and his that the full effort of labor and thought was brought to bear. Those who do not know their history, are doomed to repeat it.

    Capitalism did indeed make this country the economic force it is in the world. But, capitalism is not a religion and cannot work on man's heart. Sorry, but it takes mercy and compassion to take care of the poor. No "system" is capable - socialism, capitalism...it doesn't matter ...they can all become corrupt.

    So, for the economic good of our country, capitalism is far more motivating and productive. For the care of widows and orphans? We need more active faith. It is no accident that the pews of America are emptying while corruption abounds.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2009, at 1:31 PM, ObscuredVision wrote:

    After 38 years in the private sector, I think Mr. Schumpeter was right on. Capitalism is perfect but people aren't. As long as reward is tied to the position/power rather than to sustained performance - nothing is going to change. As long as politicians and those at the top of the food chain in the business world are focused on looking out for themselves at any price - nothing will change. Seems like the Moravian born Schumpeter got some of his insight from his understanding of the teaching of a guy named Jesus Christ.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2009, at 4:32 PM, minowe wrote:

    Schumpeter's belief that free enterprise would collapse under the weight of its own success sounds like another version of the Cloward-Pivon Strategy. Except that in the case of Cloward-Pivon, the GOAL of overloading a successful economic system with demands for more and more wealth transfer is the destruction of the system, leading to chaos.

    Either way, it looks like we'll be finding out soon, unless the politicians now in power can be replaced in time. This explains the need for speed in passing the various destructive policies (government health care, cap and trade, union check-off, etc.) now being pushed.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2009, at 5:07 PM, promech wrote:

    So how do we get to a point where the system rewards real innovation and risk taking (with your own resources) instead of shifty dealmakers and executives with oversized egos. I always thought that that was the way the free market was supposed to work.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2009, at 12:18 AM, minowe wrote:

    promech,

    First, fire ALL the politicians.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2009, at 1:59 PM, sshkop wrote:

    Not fire - replace. And make sure they dont serve for more than 2 terms with any impropriety being a reason-enough to be removed.

    And make sure that their salaries and perks are low-engough ($1 per year lets say) that only people that made something of themselves and who have another way of making a living will be in those temporary posision.

    How do we make sure that only well-intentioned altrusits are in power?

    That's the question for the ages...:)

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1009601, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/30/2009 11:41:34 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
The Public Health-Care Plan's Problem

Related Tickers

11/30/2009 4:00 PM
GS $169.66 Up +5.85 +3.57%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
NFLX $58.63 Up +0.78 +1.35%
Netflix, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***
GE $16.02 Up +0.08 +0.50%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****
BA $52.41 Down -0.04 -0.08%
The Boeing Company CAPS Rating: ***
BBI $0.63 Up +0.03 +4.98%
Blockbuster, Inc. CAPS Rating: *
AMZN $135.91 Up +4.17 +3.17%
Amazon.com, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
BKS $23.34 Down -1.05 -4.31%
Barnes & Noble, In… CAPS Rating: **

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Economic Value Added: A metric that helps measure a company’s true economic profit. As a result, it helps investors determine whether the company is creating value for its shareholders.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!