Skip to main content

Gary Chartier explains the difference between markets and capitalism

This piece is critical to an argument we have to have here in Delaware:  is there a difference between a "market" and "capitalism"?

Libertarians as well as almost everyone else (Hello, Michael Moore) often conflate the two terms into synonyms, but they aren't.  Markets involve the mechanisms of exchange and return; capitalism (to use the definition that Chartier, or Fernand Braudel, or Manuel Da Landa would prefer) is mostly an anti-competitive mechanism by which politically well-connected corporations and individuals use their clout to access public money and distort market processes that would leave us all better off if left alone.

I am not talking about unregulated financial markets here; we are looking more at events like the Chrysler/GM bailouts on a national level, or Fisker, Bluewater, Bloom, Kraft, racinos, and others at the state level.

First, give Professor Cloutier a could minutes to make his case:


(h/t Kids Prefer Cheese)

(If you are interested in Chartier's arguments, you can read his newest book, Markets Without Capitalism online for free.)

Now let's parse this in Delaware terms, thinking of two specific cases:  Fisker and the casinos.

In the Fisker case, the public rhetoric was that investing in this "green" start-up would result in a public good of several hundred more jobs and the associated economic prosperity for Delaware.  In that, of course, our political elites turned out to be sadly mistaken, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars of lost tax money.  But the question here today is not whether Fisker was a good investment, but how Fisker convinced the political elites to fund such a shaky enterprise at the beginning.

The answer, I suspect, lies not in the jobs but in the ambitions of Delaware's political elites, and their perceptions that a big ticket investment in Fisker (even if they knew going in it was a gamble) would further their own agendas.  Let's see:  VP Joe Biden had a vested interest in pursuing his boss's agenda of "green" investments.  Governor Jack Markell, we might recall, has nursed national aspirations pretty openly for a long time.  The cachet of being involved positively and pro-actively in President Obama's program of investing in "green" companies led more than a few Delaware politicians to support the program without looking at the potential downsides.  The best evidence of that is the failure of our state leaders to negotiate any meaningful "clawbacks" for getting at least some of our money back if the deal went South.  Most notably, the deal was structured so that it could not go South before the next round of elections.

What about the casinos?  Two elements here.  Despite knowing that eventually if Delaware cashed in on gambling money that other states would follow, our legislators and political leaders treated casino cash as if it would become a steady fixture in our revenue stream.  We now finance our schools based on the steady influx of casino cash.

But the second element is this:  having become "essential" to the tax base, casino owners became politically well-connected and had no reason to invest their profits to maintain themselves as competitive in the face of out-of-state competition.  Why?  Because they knew that the State, now dependent on their revenue, would have to bail them out.  And our legislators did last year, and will again this year, rather than face the consequences of their own actions.

No revenue stream lasts consistently in the same form forever.  Pay for your emergency services out of cigarette taxes like PA used to do, and--inevitably--there will come a day when people smoke less.  Pay for your schools out of gambling receipts, and--inevitably--there will come a day when fewer people come to your State to pull the levers on the slot machines.  And when these tax revenues begin to dry up--inevitably--legislators will look to maintain them artificially as long as possible to avoid the political pain of either reducing services or finding a new revenue source.

So last year when the casinos demanded millions in a bail-out, our political elites cast that as a measure to "save jobs," rather than admitting it was a bail-out for the casino corporations.

The reality:  casino revenue for Delaware is going to decline.  Gaming industry experts can even show us the trend-lines.  So it's time to figure out either (or both) what we're going to cut or where the next revenue stream is going to come from.

Comments

NCSDad said…
Capitalism is about putting the decision of where to allocate capital in the hands of those who have a successful history of investing capital efficiently as opposed to putting those decisions in the hands of the government/politicians/public lobby groups. You seem to have missed that difference - but it goes out the window when those who accumulate capital have done so by way of Rent Seeking.
Actually I disagree with that definition of capitalism.

Capitalism traditionally, and as it historically originated, referred to amassing of monetary resources (capital) on a scale larger than necessary to operate within the confines of a specific market or markets. The practice comes into play in Europe starting in the early 1500s, when you see the first banking cartels begin to treat capital itself as a commodity rather than traditional commodities like wool, cloth, glass, and other tangible products.

Markets pre-existed capital under classical, medieval and mercantile economic systems, and are driven by different but related rules of economics.

In its origins capitalism was inherently anti-competitive. The first capitalists were quite clear that they were amassing capital to manipulate markets rather than to participate in them on a competitive basis.

Over the past century the classical definition of capitalism has been expanded or stretched to conflate markets and capitalism, and to create such memes as you just used "putting the decision of where to allocate capital in the hands of those who have a successful history of investing capital efficiently," which do not satisfactorily explain trans-national capitalism under a fiat monetary system.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?