It has recently come to my attention that our President hates Capitalism, and actively works against the health of the American people. I’m not terribly surprised, however, after all if he doesn’t respect fundamental liberties, what does he respect? Bribes from big business is about all I can come up with. His recent position on quashing innovation in the meat packing industry seems only to confirm this.
Our story begins with Creekstone Farms, a small Kansas producer of beef. The beef production and meatpacking business is a tough world to compete in, especially with the huge corporate businesses that rule the roost. Rather than accepting a role as the low producer on the totem pole, the owners of Creekstone Farms resorted to good old American ingenuity and the application of capitalist principles. As the USDA currently only mandates testing of 1% of all cattle for Mad Cow Disease, an infectious prion that has caused a number of recent scares, Creekstone Farms decided to invest the capital into building testing facilities for all of their cattle so that they could offer a 100% Mad Cow free guarantee to consumers and thus increase their competitive edge. They invested over half a million dollars in extensive testing facilities, and were ready to launch their new innovative plan, but they hit a problem. The US Government refused to allow them to purchase additional testing equipment to outfit the already built laboratory.
The culprit isn’t a law against buying additional testing equipment, nor was it a shortage of the kits. No, the shadowy movers behind this decision was none other than big business advocacy groups. They even admitted to pressuring the USDA into withholding additional testing kits. The president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (a non-governmental advocacy group put together by the big players in meat packing) went so far as to say,
If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too.
Let me translate this out of lobbyist speak into plain English for you,
Oh no! Everybody panic! The consumers might like a higher quality product more than ours and we might have to cut into our profits!
Creekstone took the issue to federal court, where in March a judge ruled that the US Government had no right to deny the additional testing kits to Creekstone. This decision is currently being appealed, which led to the Bush administration’s announcement that it would fight to keep Creekstone from testing more than 1% of its cows. Now tell me, why does President Bush hate Capitalism? More importantly why does he hate the health of the American people?
It isn’t like the other meatpacking businesses have a right to make a profit. Like all companies they only have a right to try to make a profit, but if people would rather buy someone else’s product, oh well, that is the free market for you. Innovate or die, as they say. The core of this issue is that capitalism and ingenuity have been cornerstones of the American economy for literally centuries. Our market is such that it rewards those who are willing to spend the time and the money on new ideas which pan out. Those companies that don’t innovate and keep with the times fall by the way side, supplanted by smarter companies offering a product more people are willing to buy.
All Creekstone is doing is banking an initial $0.5 million, and a $0.10 per pound price increase on their beef, on the fact that Americans will pay for higher levels of testing and safety on their beef. If they are wrong, Creekstone will lose big time, but if they are right, prosperity will shine on them, just like it has other innovators in other eras. It’s just too bad that the Bush administration would rather line its pockets with ill gotten gains, than stand up for the American way.
-Angry Midwesterner
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
June 8, 2007 at 6:10 pm
George W. Bush is not against capitalism, sir. Quite the reverse, he is in favor of capitalism to the extreme. Capitalism is about profit, control, and power in the hands of a politically entitled few at the immeasurable expense of everyone else. Here’s how it works:
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Under “American” capitalism, a small minority of exploiters appropriates the surplus created by labor, leaving just enough for the actual producers to survive. The exploiters dispose of the surplus to meet their private interests, regardless of larger societal needs.
Is there anything wrong with accumulating wealth as a reward for creative innovation? Certainly not. But as the saying goes, “My rights end where the rights of others begin”. When the accumulation of wealth leads to irrational power that prohibits a great majority of the population from functioning normally, capitalism has overstepped its boundaries. When the functions of “self-interest” and “free market” cease to benefit all participants, as originally intended, capitalism has outlived its usefulness.
“Economies of scale” provide owners of the means of production with profit potential that is infinitely greater than zero. But is it ethical or humane to race through a highly-populated residential district at 200-mph simply because your vehicle has the potential to do so? Is it rational or ethical to stomp on the necks of your fellow man, simply because you can? How small and cowardly is that?
It might not be “right”. It might not be “ethical”. But it is indeed “the law”, under “American” capitalism — and this trend shows no signs if diminishing any time soon. It’s the new “American Dream”. You want a “fair shake”? Either look into a different economic model, or get used to saying, “You want fries with that?”, right here in downtown “America”.
As you suggest, sir, entrepreneurs in more innovative nations derive “efficiency” from improving productivity, not from cutting the wages of workers or increasing the taxes of workers. Their advanced industries thrive, while others die. Progressive businesses prosper while others fail. But their economies remain competitive, because the system itself ensures everyone has enough to live on. This is not the case in beautiful downtown “America”, anymore. But it’s not because people like George Bush don’t support capitalism. It’s because they DO favor capitalism at the extreme expense of human beings like YOU — and me, too.
June 8, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I would suggest you buy a book on economics and ensure that you have a good handle on the subject of capitalism. Capitalism is not, as you describe about “profit, control, and power in the hands of a politically entitled few at the immeasurable expense of everyone else”. It is instead about private ownership of production facilities, properties, and goods.
Additionally it is not about “a small minority of exploiters appropriates the surplus created by labor, leaving just enough for the actual producers to survive. The exploiters dispose of the surplus to meet their private interests, regardless of larger societal needs.” It instead about the trade of surplus (either of labor, goods, or other items of value) on the free market, with both the buyers and sellers working to establish the value of a good, attempting to meet their interests.
In an economy where supply exceeds demand, the buyers control the price of goods and services, in an economy where demand exceeds supply, the sellers control prices.
What puzzles me most about your response, however, isn’t your tentative grasp on the fundamentals of economic theory, but your bizarre implication that a single producer ensuring a higher standard of quality somehow violates the rights of others.
The situation at hand is not about “economies of scale”, or about “stomping on the necks of your fellow man”. It is about a single company wishing to raise the quality of the goods they provide, because they feel the market will respond positively to such an offering.
American law does not prohibit companies from aspiring to higher standards of quality, and Creekstone Farms is certainly not suggesting that others be held to the standard they intend to achieve. The American courts have, in fact, already ruled in favor of Creekstone and said that the US Government is the one violating the law, and that Creekstone Farms is legally allowed to do as they plan.
The issue isn’t one of capitalism, but of government favoritism. Bush, having campaign contributers in companies worried about being beaten fairly, has decided to try and let them play in an illegal fashion, quashing competition that may cut into their profits. He is acting against the interests of capitalism, and against the interests of consumers. Like many of Bush’s decisions, he is only acting in his own interests and in the interests of those who are lining his pockets.
You are mistaken that Bush’s actions are capitalistic, as government intervention is at direct odds with capitalist principles.
June 10, 2007 at 12:53 am
You are absolutey right, Angry.
June 16, 2007 at 1:33 am
Congratulations on your recent success, Mr. Angry. But, as you probably anticipate, you will most likely have similar difficulties in the future — under capitalism — and believe it or not, I happen to be on your side. As you have clearly stated:
“The culprit isn’t a law against buying additional testing equipment, nor was it a shortage of the kits. No, the shadowy movers behind this decision was none other than big business advocacy groups. They even admitted to pressuring the USDA into withholding additional testing kits. The president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (a non-governmental advocacy group put together by the big players in meat packing) went so far as to say, “If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too”.
… and I agree.
Then you clearly state:
“The issue isn’t one of capitalism, but of government favoritism. Bush, having campaign contributers in companies worried about being beaten fairly, has decided to try and let them play in an illegal fashion, quashing competition that may cut into their profits”.
… and again, you’re almost right:
“… profit, control, and power in the hands of a politically entitled few at the immeasurable expense of everyone else… economies of scale… stomping on the necks of their fellow man”.
You call them “lobbyists” and “big business” and “non-governmental advocacy groups”.
I call them “capitalists”, whose aims are exclusively “profit, control, and power in the hands of a politically entitled few at the immeasurable expense of everyone else”.
But we’re both referring to the same people, and to the same problem. Our government no longer functions “by the people and for the people”, but rather “by the corporation and for the corporation”.
Is there anything wrong with accumulating wealth as a reward for creative innovation? Certainly not. But as the saying goes, “My rights end where the rights of others begin”. When the accumulation of wealth leads to irrational power that prohibits a great majority of the population from functioning normally, capitalism has overstepped its boundaries, and outlived its usefulness.
Most “Americans” don’t pay much attention to these factors, and they tend to get blind-sided (sucker-punched) as a result. But you seem to have overcome your recent difficulties, and I’m glad. Good luck to you in the future.
Incidentally, is your beef considered “organic”? And where is it distributed? The “quality” of food products will become an increasingly important marketing factor in the minds of consumers as large corporations continue to drive prices down by cutting corners in production costs.
Thanks again for having me. You present some extremely important issues, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss them with me.
“You want fries with that”, Mr. Angry?
Sincerely,
David
January 30, 2009 at 12:36 am
Hey Mr. Angry,
Long time no see. Nice changes to the Web site. I’m impressed. Did you ever get those other problems fixed? I see we have a new “President” now. Does that help? HA!! Yeah, that’s what I figured.
Anyway, just thought I’d check back. Hope you and yours are well.
David