Economic policy best if not led by profit, idealism

Editor,

It has been a long while since I last wrote to the Daily Lobo.

I had no intention of joining in this debate over capitalism because I dislike what the opinion section of the Lobo has become: an extension of petty comments from anonymous critics who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, have a particular affinity for caps lock and rabble-rousing.

Now, after reading the ongoing thread between Damian and Jose, I felt compelled to enter into the discussion with a plea for reasonable discourse and proper reflection on the argument.
I do not agree that “a return to capitalism” is what this country needs; indeed, I am perplexed by such a statement. What exactly does that mean, and are we sure we would really benefit from such a digression?

I compassionately urge Damian to whole-heartedly consider that which he so adamantly proposes. If capitalism were the best system for economics, every nation would implement it in its purest form; but the reality is that capitalism cannot, and in fact has not, ever existed outside of a series of regulations in the form of government intervention.

It can and should be argued what extent to which government intervention is healthy, but let us be clear: the term “laissez-faire” simply exists to describe an idealistic potential of a rigorous capital-producing system. It is not an actuality, but an improbability on which we attempt to establish a more reliable constant (similar to the term “all else being equal”).

Can we really benefit from such an idealistic proposition?

I contend that we can‘t, and I believe that the historical progression of this country would back me up. There is an inherent danger in capitalism because it does not value what does not create value, and it values most what creates the most value.

In other words, what is ethically and morally sound is not what creates the greatest returns.

Our government, an institution created by popular consent, is then responsible to maintain an equilibrium to protect the people from themselves and others (and in this case to protect the consumer from detrimental market forces).

As it turns out, slavery, an extremely profitable economic model, is not in the best interest of the people; as it turns out, child labor laws are good for the people; as it turns out, the OSHA Act of 1970 is good for the people.

As it turns out, what is sound economic policy is not always sound domestic policy, so let us approach this issue prudently in our assumptions. It’s not black and white.

Don’t hear what I’m not saying — capitalism is not evil. Rather, capitalism is indifferent to good and evil, but like an axe it can be used to chop wood and build, or wage war and destroy.

Which would you prefer? As an American, and as a Christian, I implore you to reconsider the inclination of your heart. Life is not a competition to be won if we are all losing.

Matt De La O
UNM student