The Wrong Side of Capitalism
by The question as to why the U. S. economy has downslided is obviously because of mismanagement, greed and self-aggrandizement.
The wrong side of capitalism.
How did the United States drift away from the direction of the proper management of its economy is a question that must be linked to yet another question: Why has it, in the first place, overlooked urgent needs that should have been met, such as healthcare for all its citizens, regulating private institutions, such as banks and other entities, and essentially taxing oil companies that have amassed billions of dollars at the expense of consumers. The answer lies within the context of the second question: turning a blind eye to mismanagement, promoting greed and condoning self-aggrandizement. The incidence of bankruptcies on the part of major institutions must be attributed to the deviation of capitalistic interests into channels connecting only to those in complete control, both in the private and public sector of the economy.
True capitalism is best defined as a form of government where money used for tools and machines, as well as other means of production, belong to private citizens, so that people could work advantageously, unlike socialism that is subject to strictures, governing the people whose wants might be met, while their ambitions and aspirations remain unfulfilled. Ironically, the U. S. economy is presently allowed to linger on the wrong side of capitalism, benefiting the conglomerates whose perspective has turned inward (in the way of self-interest), instead of outward (fulfilling rightful needs of citizens), all because of deregulation.
The economic debacle has strengthened the chances of the democrats in the recent election and catapulted Barak Obama to victory, as a result of his messianic assurances that all would be well if he could win the election, thus triggering a wild euphoria of expectation, mingled with a heavy dose of mediocrity on the part of those, befuddled by the tone of his rhetoric and personality. By no means, could the future President of the United states let idealism replace realism, at least, not at all, within the first four years of his presidency.
Liked it
