After the miners’ rescue Wednesday, talk in Chile turned to mine safety and the conduct of Compania Minera San Esteban, the corporation that owns the San Jose mines where the miners were trapped. On Thursday, Chilean President Sebastian Pinera publicly addressed safety issues, vowing “fundamental changes in how businesses treat their workers.”
Stories about San Esteban’s horrible record are legion (e.g., here and here). The company has been host to a number of deaths at its mines in recent years, and accusations of safety violations including the charge that it ignored orders to install safety equipment–a condition of its reopening after a previous accident–which might have made an earlier escape possible for some miners.
Moreover, during the debacle, San Esteban, which played no part in the miners’ rescue, pled poverty and claimed it could not pay the trapped miners wages. As London’s Independent reported, San Esteban “says it has no money to continue paying their wages, let alone cope with the lawsuits that will inevitably arise from the ordeal.”
All in all, one might say it wasn’t an episode in which capitalism cloaked itself in glory. That is, unless one is Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page director and “Wonder Land” columnist Daniel Henninger. In his October 14 column, “Capitalism Saved the Miners: The Profit = Innovation Dynamic Was Everywhere at the Mine Rescue Site,” Henninger argued that the miners owed their rescue to a special drill bit developed by a private U.S. company. That was his entire argument.
Henninger’s real motive seemed to be to use the miners’ rescue to rebut a bit of Obama campaign rhetoric in which the president had sarcastically dismissed notion of unqualified faith in markets:
The basic idea is that if we put our blind faith in the market and we let corporations do whatever they want and we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, then America somehow automatically is going to grow and prosper.
Henninger’s response to Obama’s remark:
Uh, yeah. That’s a caricature of the basic idea, but basically that’s right. Ask the miners.
I’m sure the miners are thankful for the heroic drill bit, but their opinion of the role of capitalism in their debacle might be less breathless than Henninger’s. Indeed, most of the miners have weighed in on the central capitalist actor in the story: At least 29 of the 33 miners’ families have filed lawsuits against San Esteban.
Also inconvenient for Henninger’s argument: The rescue was run by the Chilean government and its relevant ministries, not by the capitalist company. Oh, and the U.S. government’s space agency, NASA, also played a crucial role, designing the rescue capsule and consulting on safety issues.
Moreover, it’s worth noting that, while Chile’s larger, government-owned mines have relatively good safety records, the same cannot be said for its smaller, capitalist-run mines, such as San Esteban’s.
No one argues that capitalism does not produce new innovations (while sometimes stifling innovations too), but in Henninger’s capitalist Wonder Land, the bad actions of capitalists, aswell as the the good and vital acts of governments, are banished to the real world.
“No one argues that capitalism does not produce new innovations (while sometimes stifling innovations too)…”
I think Steve Rendall’s entry is excellent (as always with his work) but I want to take some issue with the above phrase. A caveat: this is not the main point of the piece but I just wanted to point this out.
I don’t think capitalism has produced anything other than a system of organizing work and a real good way of paying for it while not paying for it completely. The innovations are the product of workers themselves, in collaboration made possible and even enhanced — I’ll admit — by capitalism but those innovators almost never include capitalists. I just think it’s important to be able to envision a productive, innovative future that isn’t hinged to capitalism. Now…back to Rendall’s important points. :-)
I’m with you 100% Alfredo. the question is not the value of capitalism but what can you do about it? Swimming with the shark just isn’t working. What? mining is dangerous? I worked on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, and it was dangerous. My father in law did aluminum casting. It was dangerous. etc. Would people be doing this without capitalism? No. They would be hunting. dangerous. fishing dangerous. Who gets the bad duty? Same old same old. Jonathan Schell said it all. Only two things are true about history: people don’t like to be stepped on and technology proliferates.
If we are headed for one government and one corporation we had better figure out how to make the government work for us. Capitalism is a force to be reckoned with.
We are not headed for a 1 gov and 1 corp, we’re just going to put a stop through controls to insure that it becomes harder and harder for people to take advantage of others. Nothing wrong with any system that has safeguards to protect its own from themselves.
Copyright destroys free speech, but tries to reconcile that through the “idea/expression dichotomy”, but when you say that the expression of an idea makes it worthy of protection and that the idea will still be able to flow freely is just plain idiotic.
Profit = Innovation?
Ah … so that’s why my car gets seventy miles a gallon.
No, wait … that’s not right, is it?
I’ve always sucked at math.
Two examples to illuminate the value of profit motive in furthering technological innovation.
1. From what orgainzation came the longest strongest sustained increase in technological innovation and what was the motivating force behind it? Answer: The United States Department if Defense, Motivation, FEAR
2. From what organization (s) has come the longest period of sustained lack of technological innovation and what was the motivating force behind it? Answer: The Petroleum and Automotive industries acting in consortium to prolonge the use of the internal combustion engine. Motivation, mutual profit.
Quite right Anon “Nothing wrong with any system that has safeguards to protect its own from themselves.” Question is, When will we begin to realize the need? Do we need another period of complete mass hopelessness to usher in another period with a strong middle class? Can it happen a second time if the government doesn’t support it? We’re supposed to be the government, but if we’re too overworked, under educated and distracted to realize the problem and the solutions will it hapen.
Though Mikey isn’t here to comment at the moment, I’m sure he’d like to point out that the DOD is a taxpayer supported part of the Gummint, and that the petroleum and automotive industries are private companies.
nellevad….My only comment is- this is a weak premise for any discussion for, or against capitalism.The “angle” seems very remote.
the weak premise, for capitalism, Mikey, is the reason for this FAIR blog. The bulwark of the Capitalist mindset/is that investment provides both the genius behind and the financial realization of commerce. All of this is driven by the twin forces of demand and competition. Price is a function of the net cost of the goods (providing the floor cost below which the product is a loss), increased (hopefully) by demand and competition. The net cost of the goods includes Materials, packaging, shipping, factory costs, and more. A reduction in any of these costs reduces the floor price and it is the function of business to reduce the floor price as much as possible to beat competition and still be able to create demand to increase profit.
Oh Crap! There, I’ve done it again. I’ve forgotten one of the costs of producing goods. Did you catch it? It was Labor. Damn. It’s soo easy to forget. It was so much easier when there were Subjects who did stuff for Royalty. And after Royalty, for a while, there were Slaves. Slaves were good because we could pretend they weren’t really even fully human. Then along came Ely Whitney and the Cotton Gin (and a few thousand more examples like it) to show that some of them were pretty damn smart, smarter than a lot of natural born (not native) americans, and some bleeding heart white folk decided slavery was immoral (recall that? I think there was a war). Now what the hell you gonna do for cheap labor to reduce your floor price? Oh wow. There’s lots of people in poor countries all over the world who think a scrap of bread is better than starving to death. Chineese built the railroads, then hispanics picked the crops for Agribusiness, ’cause there were’t enough injuns (native Americans if you want to be politically correct, and I do) and plucked and cleaned the chickens for corporate farms, and there was so much work to do that the corporations (Capitalists?) incouraged them come here illegally and looked the other way (with the help of the Government and the National Chamber of Commerce). And through it all, even in the first generation, and particularly in the following ones, they became us. They gave up German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish Spanish and many more native thongues to become like us. Americans. Tolerant, inclusive, Multi ethnic, multi racial Americans. Because we have an inclusive Constitution that bears on what we are, not what we aren’t. OK, Maybe we’re not quite there yet in all regards. Maybe this last group haven’t felt quite as as welcome as those who came before (except for the Blacks who didn’t come voluntarily anyway). Pesky things, Human beings. When the only thing they’re here for is to carry your water, and they keep proving over and over that like the Constitution says, they’re created equal. We’ve outsourced much of our manufacturing labor so we don’t have to receive yet another influx of immigrants we won’t be able to deal with.
We’re better off, by far than our European cousins. Their imported cheap labor, unlike ours, does not share their dominant religeon. I read recently someone commenting that we had esported Islamophob
ia (did I hit something wrong or just run out of room?). I meant exported, and (probably quite clearly) never proof read any of that last post. Anyway, We didn’t export it, they have it in spades already as a result of their own immigration policies. Religeous intolerance is at the core of most all of the problems we have though it should be better termed ethnocentricity, the inabilitry to look at others except through your own pride and prejudices.
Anyway, American Corporations have handled the pesky problem of labor costs in different ways at different times in our history. Unless forced to by Unions or the Government they have always considered labor just another part of the bottom line floor cost of doing business. When unemployment is at low levels competition for quality workers helps boost the bottom and raise the average. It is all too obvious today that part of the corporate ajenda today is to create conditions that will hurt the economy intentionally in order to increase the unemployed. Since there is no longer any will at all on the part of Corporations to act in the broader interest of the society as a whole, It becomes the burden of a government “Of the People” to act in their behalf. That’s my Premice, and it aint weak. it’s necessary if we’re not to become another of the world’s corporatocracies with a few uber wealthy and huge underclass. It’s a mystery to me that anyone with a whit of intelligence would choose to hoodwink as many of the masses as possible to create such a society. in the end it’s the ruination of everyone.
Not to parse it out too much, but when you think about it, the obvious ‘key’ that REALLY accomplishes positive behaviors or innovations for society is ‘motivation’. An inventor is motivated to discover a new technique or invention which then may help society. A businessman is motivated to provide a service or make a product, which then helps society. Governments or NGOs are also motivated to provide a service, pass a law, offer protection, or make a product. Religions are motivated to provide spiritual leadership. Ultimately, motivation is the common element to accomplishment.
In line with what Alfredo Lopez said above, people are motivated by numerous things – – psychological drives (fear, envy, social pressure, greed, will-to-power, altruism, etc) and biological drives (hunger, thirst, sex, sleep, pain avoidance, pleasure enhancement, etc). I would submit that when a society sets itself up with one of the negative motivators — such as fear, greed, or will-to-power — as its PRIMARY motivator, than predictably the resultant society will have be skewed in the direction of that motivator. That motivator will tend to permeate the society and will have corresponding negative consequences. I obviously believe that we’re too enamored of greed in our society, so much so that entities like the WSJ have elevated it to a basic ‘good’, equating it with the occasional good results that the motivation sometimes creates. The ideal, unobtainable utopian society would be one where everyones’ actions would be based on altruism. In the real, practical world, probably the best possible society would be where most of the motivations are from positive sources and there are relatively few (and low intensity) negative motivations.
Of course capitalism promotes innovation. Of course people can conspire against the public good in a capitalist system. However, if we blame coal mine tragedies on “capitalism”, we would also have to blame the Chernobyl incident on “socialism”. It really doesn’t wash either way.
Nellevad
Most of the time when I read you I hear grandmothers voice saying what is he on about.I get it though.I wish you would take one sentence to say what Tim N recently said.You are a socialist and you believe government should rule.Period.
Nellevad
Most of the time when I read you I hear grandmothers voice saying what is he on about.I get it though.I wish you would take one sentence to say what Tim N recently said.You are a socialist and you believe government should rule.Period.
Well stated Big EM. It’s all about the motivation or “direction” that guides a society. And you’re quite right, kvhout, the political system through which citizens interact with each other and the environment is much less important than the outlook that the society holds as the binding force behind it, the motivation, if you will. One view of the future would have us all roll up our sleves and prepair our little planet for the next millennia and beyond while respecting the personal goals and ambitions of all of the members of the “team” (as long as they aren’t contrary to the goals of the Society as a whole). Another, which seems to predominate in the halls of Congerss and much of the media today would restrict Government to being the guarantor of the rights of the individual and business without regulation. Of course the proponents of the latter are quite certain that through their motovational model (Private, Profit) the same ends would be met, only faster and with a more prosperous populace to boot. But would they if the consumers they reach only have available the products on the list provided by enterprise. Better and better moustraps can’t change the direction of a Society. And if the directon clearly needs changing for the benefit and/or survival of the population, that private
, profit (I hate my computer sometimes) motive can react too slowly for Societies benefit. In fact, corporations spend huge sums of money to convince the public that change is unnecessary so they can make even more profit from the products they currently have for sale. Some people would stand on street corners selling matches while Rome burns. But, of course, Global Climate Change is just a phony, unfounded theory proposed by that Commie (land owner, farmer, Science teacher, Capitalist) Al Gore, who wants to dismantle the private sector and usher in the golden era of Socialism throughout the world. I’m the same way too. It only seems contradictory that I’ve owned my own business since 1983. Uh, Mikey. Listen to your Grandmother! (He? did you come from an alternative family?) had the wisdom of the ages. And you’re repeating yourself. The fact that all of the rational comments by all of us well informed pragmatists reaches stone deaf ears to those of you who konw only dogma and Ayn Rand only illustrates the scope of the problem as it relates to entrenched self interest.
There is one area that these capitalists conveniently leave out when figuring their ‘bottom line costs’ along with cheap labour: their own over-inflated salaries and bonuses.
@Laurie:
Copyright is fine, and does not ‘destroy free speech’. You’re free to say whatever you have the wherewithal to say, just not to steal it from someone else and claim it as your own. Free use exists so that ideas still flow.
Other people are not entitled to the intellectual property of the writer — who can spend years developing a single product– just because they want it.
Thanks, nellevad. There’s a general and sometimes deep misunderstanding of terms (socialism, capitalism, corporatism) here by a few posters.
As for where blame lies for the coal-mine disasters–here, in the USA (and in Chile, in the San Esteban mine), hatred of unions (which bring sensible safety regulations) and flat-out greed. There’s is just a seething hatred on the part of many corporate-types of unions, working people, and government. Our only recourse in a democracy for action to control run-amok criminals and profiteers in the Corporate world is the government, which we are supposed to control.
The Soviet Union was not, you may have noticed, a socialist paradise, where workers controlled the means of production. “Socialism” had nothing to do with the Chernobyl disaster; capitalism had little to do with the mine disasters here and elsewhere, though certainly the mine owners are keen on capitalism, and most capitalists think it’s fine that business-owners club down their workforce. It’s very simple, really: if all’s you care about is making a ton of money off of someone’s labor and care not at all for the laboror’s right’s, democracy, safety, their (and yours!) environment, etc., then bad things will happen. Eventually. Every time.
P.S.: You know, nelllevad, you’re under no obligation to respond to other posters here, if you know what I’m talking about. I finally took my own advice and from now on will simply ignore those who choose either to remain in ignorance or denial. My advice to you is to do the same. You obviously recognize that some of us here are clueless, and seem to mis-understand in a very basic way what FAIR is all about. I’m no longer interested in filling in the ignorant and the clueless on the facts of everyday life; here’s hoping you can resist the urge to reply to others who simply don’t deserve any time of yours.
Whether it’s US-style or Soviet-style, making money off someone else’s labor is going to happen. And there’s huge potential for ill. Ask any miner with silicosis. Ask any hamburger-flipper with a poverty wage and no health insurance. Yet in any system throughout history, somebody gets paid more than somebody else. The real question is, how do the workers fare? What are the working conditions and how wide is the compensation disparity between top management and the lowest-wage workers? (In the US, it used to be a relatively modest disparity. Today it’s like the disparity between aristocracy and serfs. Anybody have that statistic handy?)
Wheree have all these big word users come from? In the sixties it was possible to say it simply: PEACE, LOVE. Mke love not war.
Since then too many people have been tech educated, had the blinkers attached, the thinking constrictors installed, and can’t think outside the muliple phrase ideology. Security is the big theme, with the fantasy that big military spending can protect us all. That there needs to be a planetary policeman, and the USA has not only stepped up, but demanded the role. All this will assure there will be an adequate pension for our later years. In the mean time we have no time for a family, or to get to know our neighbors. Community is supposed to sprout wild like a weed.
I have never met such a group of people who have not a clue ….not one iota of a clue what America is.On a scale of 1 to ten -lets all fill in how much we hate this country as it is, and has been.You hide your complete mind fog/F#ck behind the idea that you simply cannot teach the great unwashed masses you brilliant thoughts.And YOU are the group that is the elected representatives of the torch this country carries?My God my God can November come any quicker so we can boot you out the door?
Here it is, ari. It took a 30 second google search on wage disparity (even corrected my misspelling). the first hit I clicked on was from Huff Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html. the most significant immediate quote was, “…while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.” Less than half the growth at the bottom and a retreat after inflation, and a redical increase at the top end of the scale. Now THAT’S FAIR!
Tim. I started recieving and reading FAIR’s blogs a while back and have found them illuminating to say the least. I like that they attempt to include as subjective a concept as fairness in their analysis of the newsmakers. It’s easy to pinpoiint inaccuracies and outright falshoods where they occurr but Fairness is what we finally return to in these reply’s as that’s what separates those of us who want to succeed on more than an individual level, while being “Fair” to our fellow man, and those who just want to succeed. As for as my responses here to poster (s?) who seem at odds with the aims of “FAIR”, I realized many years ago that there are those who gather facts and use them for form opinions, and those who have opinions and generate facts to bolster them. I do this to keep the ol’ noodle from getting too limp and to see if I can still do the research necessary and the orgainzation of thoughts clear enough to carry a complex set of factors to a clear and rational conclusion. At least that’s the intent. A millenia ago I was a Science major grad student. Running a business, whille satisfying at some levels lacks the intellectual challenge of those good ol’ days (probably why I won’t ever retire, I’ve got to feel involved and usefull at something). I’m under no illusions that anything I have to say to those who dispute the notion of “FAIR” play would ever do anything but inflame and infuriate such person(s). But that’s the part that’s fun, isn’t it? ;) .
nellevad
Poverty under Obama has also exploded as expected.And always remember that as pressure of market forces or in fact any pressure on the economy, will be born better by those with money.It is to be expected.Your copy that in 02-07 ,the top 1 percent captured two thirds of the income growth can be better stated in this way.
Those that took the risk and did those important things(education)to succeed have continued to claim the lions share of the profit in the economic expansion………….AS EXPECTED.In the interest of” FAIR” play ….we are going to tax the bee-jee-zits out of them and redistribute the wealth to those who did not do those things that would put themselves in that position.So goes the mindless simplicity of BAM
Im under no illusions that anything I have to say to those who dispute the notion of “FAIR” play would ever do anything but inflame and infuriate such person(s). And It is not all that fun.
P.S Raising taxes on anyone is a nightmare at this time. Government has to cut spending.Go back to tax levels in 2005 and be done with it.
Does it ever occurr to you Mikey that you might demonstrate a capacity for thoughtfull research. Where did you come up with the notion that “Poverty under Obama has also exploded as expected.” What statistics can you reference to support your allegation and what imparitive leads to the conclusion that it is to be expected. As usual you simly pontificate from on high (a state you must achieve regularly). The cream has risen and you are part of it (you are, of course, aren’t you? I mean, at least Filthy Rich as a result of your keen intellegence and superb dilligence?) And you did it all on your own too, rising from poverty to become a captain of industry so you can testify that if you can make it anyone can if so driven and if not they deserve their lowly state. Or do you embody ALL of the qualities that make the far right so endearing to regular folk, Arrogance, Hypocracy and contempt. What you see as taxing the “bee-jee-zits” out of the wealthy, I see as making them pay their fair share (there I go with that “Fair” word again). We’ve gone over the statistics on these blogs several times to domonstrate that the tax hikes on the wealthiest two % in America diesn’t ammount to much of a hit to them financially. Taking the lion’s share is a misnomer. If Lions didn’t share their killings with the pride, the pride couldn’t survive. But you don’t give a damn about the pride, do you. You honestly have convinced yourself that if you take as much as you can for yourself, that it will somehow benefit everyone in spite of the fact that all of human history demonstrates the contrary. You say that lower taxes will create jobs though the statistics demonstrate the opposite. Lower taxes will create more wealth in fewer hands, increase unemployment, drive down wages and further increse wealth in fewer hands. Nice spiral if you’re one of the few wealthy, but not so good for the pride.
Part Two was very interesting (communism saved the minors?). How about with a really great democratic, socialist leader and people working together the minors saved themslves long enough to be saved earlier with a capitalist tool than would have been the case if they haden’t had it (like by christmas). too long for a bumper sticker, I suppose.
Mikey, thanks for bringing up the poverty angle. I learned a lot researching it. It did rise to the highest level since 1994 (the year Newt and the boys took back congress, shall we blame that one on Newt? Makes about as much sense). It was a 1% increase over 2008, hardly an “explosion, eh? It’s seen by most economists as the continuing fallout of the financial bailout/fanemae, Frediemac deep recession caused by Clinton/Bush. Why not blame it on Obama? the left does, indicating that Obama didn’t spend enough on social programming to alleviate the inequities of making the rich richer. You, Mikey, should be hearlding Obama for being such a good, cold hearted rightey. Something about having your cake and eating it too.
Well, yeah, nellevad, but the trick is not giving a damn if you upset someone who you shouldn’t waste so much as one millisecond on. If someone respnds to reasoned, researched points with nothing but utter bullshit, nonsense, and contemptible lies, why bother with them after the first attempt? Do you not see that person(s) you reply to, after they clearly have lied (repeatedly) only come to expect you to answer their idiotic nonsense? Why bother? You just embolden them, to the point where they think that their “views” derserve merit, or at least consideration. They don’t, and never did. You can certainly inflame and infuriate folks here without ever responding to their lies and dumb provocations, believe you me. That’s what’s truly fun, after all.
Nellevad
One thing jumped out at me.Where you said “take as much as you can for yourself” .Excuse me sir I earn it as most people do.Often with 16 hour days.It is the government that takes!And my feelings on people is that there are people who succeed and some who dont.There are great highs and mighty lows.I have experienced all ,and will I am sure again.It is no governments job to guarantee parity.Maybe in some failed socialist concept.But not here where ultimate freedom with all its flaws(and blessings)resides.
You ask how did I know his policy’s would impact the poor badly?Better you should ask how did I know it would impact every stratum in a bad way.Of course that was simple.It has proved so.His policies that redistribute wealth do many things but in the end are anti business ,anti capitalist,job busting,redistribution gobble-de goop.
You say social programming as if that is not the damnation that it is.
Your dissertation on the qualities of the right are right out of the liberal playbook.Strangely Those qualities are all owned by your own president yet he has a nice smile so…….
Your ideas on taxation are simply not in line with the foundations of this country.So the question must be asked.What is a fair share of the so called rich(those making over 250 thou jointly).Or of the millionaires?What is fair to TAKE from them?Is 98% fair?I wish all of us could have a flat tax without any shelters.But it could never happen.Raise the rich tax to 98% and no one blinks.Raise everyones tax to 98% and you have… revolution.How can you not see the built in class warfare in that statement?Yet it is what drives the DEmocratic party today.Fair for all– but those who have succeeded.To them we meet out unequal justice due to there unequal renumeration as if they earned it) So we appoint them the “worker bees” of society.Live and die to support the masses.NEVER HAS… OR WILL WORK.It is a simple word SOCIALISM
Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Safari. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the problem solved soon. Thanks
I’m impressed, I have to admit. Really rarely will i encounter a weblog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me let you know, you’ve got hit the nail within the head. Your idea is outstanding; the dilemma is an element that not enough everyone is speaking intelligently about. My business is quite happy i always stumbled across this at my discover some thing about it.