Because business is a collective and authority is to an extent decentralized, we are bound by rules and in business, rules and strategy is to drive down costs and maximize the output of investments. That's all fine and good. But left unchecked, without rules, there is no good moral guide for business because it is a diverse collective. In medieval times, the church played the role of bringing the collective social conscience to t, mahe trades – for instance, making Fridays fish only (keeping fishermen employed, even if you owned cows, chickens or pigs) or forcing particular garments, rituals or tithing.
But we are diverse now, with many religious and non-religious beliefs driving our groups and religion can be the arbiter for an individual still, laws are what drives behavior. That secular approach gives us freedom to move within who we are and very ethically, provides freedom of religion.
But in order to have a set of guidelines that promote the overall social welfare that individual religions cannot, we must not only have regulation, to prevent harmful behavior, but contribution, in taxes and in action by business. It's a safety net against the very raw terms in which market economics works. For instance;
Your house, let's say, sits on top of a natural gas supply. In an unregulated environment, the business takes over your land by any means necessary and claims your gas. That doesn't happen because we have rules in place. You own your land and business cannot just walk in and take what it wants.
Here's why government still matters:
The city could claim eminent domain – and push you off your land for a nominal fee, if business were able to convince them it served a greater good.
Now – if business has lobbied government and funded candidates to make rules that you own your land but mineral and gas rights are the governments right – and the government sells those to business and now they have the right to go after those resources and it is unethical if you didn't understand that when you bought the property – but it's legal.
So you need representatives that work on your behalf – and respond to business environments and needs, but work for the good of the people first.
And those that argue that business provides jobs and therefor profit is for "the good of the people" let's remember that business is profit driven – jobs are not created by creating more profit. Jobs are only created by a need that results in profit (said another way, business does not hire when it earns more money – it only hires when it has an opportunity that the current staff cannot carry out – and is constantly looking for ways to reduce cost, of which, people are usually the largest). So the only way the community benefits from additional profit (cost savings) is through taxation.
Because of taxation, business set up foundations, which donate money which can be leveraged to bring costs in balance with revenue. There is moral good at work here too, but very much subject to the rules of profitability so those cannot be counted on.
Safety and above board behavior is driven by regulation as well – in the 1940s (less than 80 years ago) collective bargaining started in the US because laws were put into place regulating business to stop heavy on the job mortality rates and starvation wages.
Capitalists call regulation communism or socialism, but that's inaccurate – in fact it's a lie. The means of production remain in private interests. In (true) communism, the means of production are held by the people and in socialism they are held by the government.
In a democracy, they need to be regulated in order to be privately held and still support society. Taxes and the infrastructure of government to regulate and enforce regulation is necessary in order for the socio-economic system to work. To promote individual welfare, balanced economy, education, scientifc advancement and basic human rights.
Right now, that government is being disassembled and the controls that keep people safe, educated and able to live are being removed, taking us back to a pre-1920's condition and beyond the individual risk in that is the risk that unregulated business will do what it did in 1929 – and even what moderately regulated business did in 2008 – it will allow greed to prevail over security and the economy collapses.
Yes, the invisible hand works. It's elegant in moderation – but in excess, it's scales tip to the ruination of many people and society. In 1930's and 40's we realized this and put protections in place, for the economic system and for social welfare – like social security and Medicaid. Like the Fed and the support of collective bargaining. When businesses lobby against these things, it's understandable, they are costs and they are counterintuitive to that closed system – but in the greater machine of human existence, democracy and society cannot survive unregulated capitalism. We need the balance.
This makes your choices at the poles urgently important. Voting for additional pro-business reform results to condemning society to unbridled greed, which only benefits a very few and only benefits them for a short time. Look for candidates that want secular social reform, universal healthcare, fair labor and trade laws. That's true freedom, where the system works for all (including business, who still make profits).
To be clear - I'm not anti-business or communist or socialist. I am in favor of democratic, socially responsible capitalist society. That means we put the needs of people first in with businesses needs. Some equate this to socialism, but it is in fact not - I'm not in favor of state owned means of production. I do believe in regulation and in some state run institutions, like government, water services, prisons, roads and health services - necessities where profit motive corrupts the basic nature of the endeavor (anything that is required access for everyone).
Healthcare - now that sounds socialist you say? Well, the basic idea of any health insurance company is to provide insurance where risk is spread over a group - and that way, everyone pays in a moderate fee, to allow everyone to use benefits if needed. The fee is high in the case of private insurance because the company has to make money. That means that not everyone is covered and not everyone can afford coverage. Having the pay system state run removes profit, which lowers cost. It doesn't keep hospitals and doctors and nurses from being paid market rates, just like private insurance - in fact it is like private insurance in every way except it doesn't have to make a profit - the goal is to break even.
Companies work like this for internal charges. They work for Net Zero. There is nothing uncapitalist about this - just that not everything needs to be exposed to the larger market - it's still a market, but is closed to profiteering. Invisible hand is still at work. What destroys healthcare (privately insured or publicly is the attempt to subject care to accounting rule rather than medical necessity. If we did our best job of care, however, Doctors, not accountants or actuaries, would decide on treatment. That doesn't happen in the private insurance market. Business people decide on what formularies are available and what treatments are considered normal. These are done with consultation with medical professionals, but the evaluation still needs to include profit - an extra layer of money.
Conversation invited.
