Peter Smith’s op-ed “Community capitalism would strengthen markets and people” (Dec. 14, TribLIVE) is another example of the redefinition of terms so frequently used in contemporary political discussions.
First, this country long ago recognized the shortcomings and harms of pure capitalism with passage of the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust legislation. If you recall Economics 101, vis-a-vis Samuelson, mixed enterprise has been the U.S. business/social model.
Second, using Social Security as an example of decentralized federalism is a contradiction in terms; it is mandatory and totally controlled by government.
Furthermore, creating communal organizations without a profit motive is not capitalism, it’s social welfare. There is nothing wrong with this if it is freely adopted and practiced by a local group. Even larger cooperatives are useful as long as they are subject to the control of the beneficiaries and not generally to some form of government. Also, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a good example of mixed enterprise.
Lastly, a federally funded minimum income is so far removed from the concept of capitalism it suggests Smith only uses the term capitalism to disguise what would be an overbearing, autocratic centralized government policy. I will give him credit for recognizing the unfairness of our tax codes and loopholes, but everyone knows that. In theory, that should be easy to fix.
To close I would ask Peterson to explain the difference between “trickle down” and his “lawn sprinkler” example. Or, is there any difference as far as the distribution of wealth?
Louis F. D’Emilio
Penn Township, Westmoreland County