Another nail in the coffin

THE BOGUS ECONOMIST

The Bush definition of compassionate capitalist conservatism took another hit yesterday with two revelations. Firstly, it seems the White House, under advice of counsel (Attorney General Michael Mukasy) has invoked executive privilege when it comes to telling Congress how, when or why it allegedly exerted influence on the Environmental Protection Agency to refuse California's request to impose tougher emission standards than the current federal ones. Then it turns out that the same White House was informed as early as 2005 that there was an impending collapse in the home financing sector and, "under intense lobbying by the banking industry," refused to crack down on what was shown to be disastrous lending practices. Leading the lobbying effort were such luminaries as Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers and Citibank, all either bankrupt or else face down in the public trough, seeking more taxpayer money.

I've been ranting about the changes in what we have come to call capitalism since I started a column in 2002. I pointed out that capitalism involves risk and responsibility, two items that have been conspicuously absent from the Bush policy manual since he took office. All the stuff I said has been said better by real rather than bogus economists. The point of this column is not to continue to flail at the dying horse, but to ask a trenchant question:

What does anyone propose to replace the tired, inefficient, greedy and morally bankrupt system we've been steadily undermining since at least 1941? That was the year, you'll recall, when entrepreneurs continued to sell scrap metal to Japan after Pearl Harbor until such sales were forbidden by law. The law of The Buck has ruled ever since. If something is not specifically controlled by laws, there will always be those who put profit ahead of country, religion, human life or anything else. They do it for a variety of reasons- greed, fear, need and survival. As long as a CEO has a Board of Directors answerable to shareholders and who is making a generous income so long as profits roll in, patriotism, loyalty or even humanity take back seats.

Everyone agrees that the communism of the former Soviet Union was a dismal failure, mostly because it was coupled with a brutal political system. Dictatorships can't afford free and open markets. Ironically, a free and open political system, such as the one we used to have here, is an invitation to a pretty nasty political system, such as the Cheney version of democracy.

Since both communism and capitalism have been susceptible to sucker punches from either market forces or political abuse, we plainly need another approach. Shall it be a form of socialism with private entrepreneurship encouraged for small business, but strict government regulation imposed on potential monopolies? Shall it permit private companies to operate social security, medicare and our infrastructure because of their alleged efficiency? Should limits be placed on the amount of lobbying that seems to affect what legislators enact - or not enact? What kind of balance should there be between what states want to do and what the federal government mandates - from medical marijuana to smog standards?

Stay tuned.