What spurs the capitalist economy? It is pure and simple greed. Or is it? The years between 1870 and 1900 in the U.S.A, for instance, were called the Gilded Age. Disparities between the rich and the poor grew exponentially in the period. However, new millionaires built extravagant abodes called the Newport mansions, and there were so many folk out there looking for jobs through political patronage. Those who supported the right side, got them.
We could call what’s immediately past us, our own Gilded Age. We could also call it the age of unbridled excess. The nouveau riche flaunted their wealth, and most of them became wealthy through gaming of the system to their advantage. But the paradox of capitalism always has been that it is greed that to a great extent propels it forward.
The rich are greedy, not because they want to feed their children. The grasping rich, want to flaunt their wealth, drive those monstrous Land Cruisers and buy those vanity number plates. They want mansions in foreign capitals, and insist on putting on a televised show even when they dole out for charity.
The bottom line then is that, try as the Church and the Temple might, it is impossible to separate capitalism from greed. Greed is always present, but it sometimes grows exponentially and heightens the disparities between the rich and the poor to unimaginably toxic levels.
That’s the type of greed that brought people on to the streets in this country in what was called the Aragalaya. 2022 was the culmination of years of unbridled greed in the form of a blowback against capitalist avarice and a political system that enabled it.
DESIST
In modern jargon, unbridled greed is sometimes known as neo-liberalism. However, though certainly most of the previous Governments kept to the neo-liberal dogma in the recent past, the greed was of a more personal nature. As stated, those who plundered, certainly didn’t do so to feed the children. They did so to show off conspicuous consumption.
In society as a whole, this greed seemed to be duplicated on the part of the entrepreneur class, petty officialdom and the professional classes. If greed pervades all aspects of society, why should it be said that this greed was “neo-liberal greed?”
There was no doubt that capitalism and more capitalism drove greed. We were one of the first countries to liberalise the economy in the 70s, but the greed that was conspicuously visible in society in the past two decades was glaring. It was our own Gilded Age with bling, and millionaire-owned bungalows, except that they were not in Newport.
The Economist, in a recent article states that Sri Lanka, once a free market pioneer is now taking a leap to the left. The Economist editorial board ought to be advised to desist from jumping into conclusions.
That the new dispensation promises to eradicate corruption and usher in a new dawn accompanied with systemic change, does not necessarily mean that there is a leap to the Left. The Government has by all accounts pledged not to interfere with free-market economics, and is committed to helping businessmen and young entrepreneurs. By any yardstick, this does not seem to signify any type of ‘leap to the left.”
If a capitalist economy continues under this new dispensation, would the propellant of that capitalism be greed? This article began with the premise that all capitalism is propelled through greed. In and of itself, that statement should not necessarily be negative. Greed is part of the human condition, and it is humbling but true that greed per se is tolerable, but that excessive greed is abhorrent.
In the past few decades, greed was contagious. Greed also became a trend, a societal tendency, a fad even. Ostentatious, conspicuous consumption by politicians seemed not only to be tolerated, it seemed at least in some ways, to be encouraged and applauded.
But greed was grating, and no longer a fad when the ordinary folk had to forego essentials after the economy collapsed, and inflation went through the roof. By that time it was clear that greed had a human toll, and that conspicuous consumption came at a cost to society, even though it had come to a point at which everybody was aspiring for the SUV that the politician had acquired — after not having worked for it.
So, greed can be seen as essentially tolerated under capitalism but frowned upon when it is a societal menace and not a systemic quirk or even a systemic imperative.
It is not wise for any regime to attempt to extinguish the essential character of a capitalist society, if the regime wants economic growth and prosperity.
It hasn’t happened in China. Though China is run by the Communist Party, it is now a capitalist country with all of the trappings of wealth and wretched excess being part of that equation. The wealthy in China certainly flaunt their wealth, even though the Government is tough on corruption. But corruption and displays of conspicuous consumption are two very different things. Many middle-class Chinese who suddenly acquire wealth feel the need to go drag racing in Ferraris or to use IPhones encased in gold. Chinese actors have been known to flaunt mind-boggling wealth including Rolex and Patek Phillippe watch collections that would be the envy of Hollywood actors.
consumption
Conspicuous consumption became such a social media trend that the Chinese authorities have now taken steps to ban displays of obscene wealth on social media accounts, with some social media profiles that have been known for flaunting wealth in an obscene manner, being taken down by the authorities.
But the reader gets the picture. The country may be run by a Communist Party, but in China, capitalism is the norm as the stupendous economic growth achieved in the country is owed to capitalist entrepreneurship.
Those who wrote The Economist opinion piece on Sri Lanka should have known that though the NPP has a Marxist background so-called, the party would not be stifling growth by curtailing the market economy and the culture of capitalist entrepreneurship. That was obvious from the time the party campaigned, meeting business leaders, and courting their support for the effort to win elections.
Of course, the reality is that capitalism is driven by a certain level of greed on the part of the entrepreneur classes. Profit-motive it is, but mostly the profit-motive is driven by a desire to earn more than others, with conspicuous consumption almost always factored in. Some would call it greed, plain and simple. If greed is part of capitalism, and the free-market dynamic, so be it.
Greed should prevail as long as it is not corrupt, and as long as it is not unconscionable and excessive greed. It’s not so much that greed should prevail than the fact that greed does prevail.
It’s greed that drives entrepreneurial innovation, and then, when people start acting on their impulses, that develops into full blown business enterprises which provide the jobs and keep the economy ticking.
It’s another one of those great paradoxes of life. Given that life is replete with paradoxes and this is one of them, suffice to say, short of saying let there be greed, let’s acknowledge there is greed.
What’s reprehensible is when this greed knows no bounds, and when the next person is forgotten for the sake of unbridled greed.
But, if China hasn’t reverted back to Communism in practice, there is no case for any other country to do so. Each country would have its own limits or boundaries within the Capitalist system, but essentially it all boils down to the same. Greed drives economies, and to some extent entrepreneurial greed is seen as the lubricant that moves the economy, as long as corruption is kept in check, and there is no exploitation of the working class.
