CHARACTER AND ECONOMICS

It seems to me, and I suspect not entirely without ground, that honest and upright people are more suited for socialism, while the dishonest ones, the Madoff types, thrive and prosper under capitalism. This point becomes clearer when we restate the proposition above in the following fashion. –

Dishonesty goes only so far under socialism, but under capitalism it defines the nature of competition, and determines the difference between spectacular success and abject failure.

On the other hand, a society consisting entirely of honest and upright people is a patently utopian society. Corruption is the way of the world, be it under socialism or capitalism. Stalinist methods of fighting corruption (shoot the perpetrators!) do not justify themselves when their enforcement almost inevitably falls into the hands of scoundrels. They become a foundation of amoral tyranny and expose the basic lethal flaws of totalitarian society, which in a utopia may not be such an evil idea, after all, but as it so frequently turns out to be when wishful thinking falls and breaks its neck against harsh reality.

Conversely, capitalist societies are not entirely made of dishonest people. Honest and hardworking capitalists can achieve a limited measure of success without resorting to crookery. Mind you, a limited measure of success, because, with very few exception, the breaking of the “sound barrier” in capitalist competition requires a level of ruthlessness which cannot be reached by the good and well-meaning…

Moreover, it is much easier to harmonize honesty, integrity, and hard work with productive capitalism, that is, industrious, value-producing capitalism. Alas, in the business of profit-making, financial manipulation and all kinds of schemes have too much lure to be resisted by society. As a result, the good capitalist finds himself or herself at a tremendous disadvantage. A good example of this is the movie Other People’s Money. Yes, it does have a sort of happy ending, suggesting that on the balance even manipulative capitalism is capable of healing itself. But all is not well that ends well in Hollywood. Besides, the morale of the movie shows an upright American industrial business being (hopefully) rescued by a Japanese intrusion. Not the most promising way of saving honest American entrepreneurs by putting America’s future in the hands of foreigners!..

Where does that leave us? In practical terms, nowhere. All kinds of societies have their share of “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” A limited measure of success can be reached by an enterprising angel regardless of the nature of economics here or there. The question of how far the goody-two-shoes can go is definitely an open question.

So what is the purpose of this entry in my Contradiction in Terms (Economics) section? Well, my purpose in writing all my entries is not to provide neat answers, but to make thinking people think.

I hope that this purpose has been accomplished here.