That’s a form <strong>of</strong> crony capitalism. <strong>The</strong> rules are not being appliedequally to everyone. And that means that the power to give awaiver also means the power to deny one. And you can deny itto those who aren’t making the proper donations to the politicalparty in power or who you just, for whatever reason, you don’tfavor. You have an arbitrary law that you can selectively apply tosome and not to others.Second, I see crony capitalism right now in all <strong>of</strong> these subsidiesthat are going into “green technology,” for example. <strong>The</strong>y’resubsidizing some businesses and, ultimately, since the governmentdoesn’t have any money on its own, it’s taking it from taxpayersand redistributing it to people who are politically favored. I seewhat’s happening with General Electric now, in terms <strong>of</strong> thekind <strong>of</strong> taxes they’re paying, with all the special exemptions anddeductions that get written into the tax laws. And since they’reso heavily into these alternative energy technologies, or some <strong>of</strong>them, they’re getting to a point where they do not have to paytaxes on most <strong>of</strong> their income, just because they’re politicallyconnected. So it <strong>of</strong>fends me. I think it’s a very bad thing.Palmer: Would you call it immoral?Mackey: Yes, I would. Immoral . . . well, I call it immoral. Butthen you get to the point <strong>of</strong> having to define what that means.It certainly violates my ethics and my sense <strong>of</strong> right and wrong.Whether that violates other people’s ethics or not, it’s hard tosay. I certainly don’t like it. I’m opposed to it. It’s not compatiblewith my idea <strong>of</strong> how society should be governed. That sort <strong>of</strong>thing shouldn’t happen in a society that has a strong rule <strong>of</strong> law.Palmer: Who do you see as the main gainers from the free-marketcapitalism that you embrace?Mackey: Everyone! Everyone in society is a beneficiary. It is whathas lifted much <strong>of</strong> humanity out <strong>of</strong> poverty. It’s what made thiscountry wealthy. We were dirt poor. America was a land <strong>of</strong> opportunity,but it was not a wealthy country. Even though Americasurely hasn’t been perfect, it’s enjoyed one <strong>of</strong> the freest markets23
in the world for a couple <strong>of</strong> hundred years, and as a result we’vegrown from very poor to a prosperous, authentically rich country.Palmer: In her book Bourgeois Dignity, Deirdre McCloskeyargued that it was a change in the way that people thoughtabout business and entrepreneurial innovation that made possibleprosperity for the common person. Do you think that wecan recapture that respect for wealth-creating businesses again?Mackey: I think we can, because I saw what happened whenRonald Reagan got elected. America was in decline in the 1970s—there’s no doubt about it; look at where our inflation was, whereinterest rates were, where GDP was heading, the frequency <strong>of</strong>recessions, we were suffering from “stagflation” that revealed thedeep flaws <strong>of</strong> Keynesian philosophy, and then we had a leader whocame in and cut taxes and freed up a lot <strong>of</strong> industries throughderegulation and America experienced a renaissance, a rebirth,and that pretty much carried us for the past twenty-five years ormore. We had basically an upward spiral <strong>of</strong> growth and progress.Unfortunately, more recently we’ve gone backwards again, at leasta couple <strong>of</strong> steps backwards. First, under . . . well, I could blameevery one <strong>of</strong> these presidents and politicians, and Reagan wasn’tperfect by any means either, but most recently Bush really acceleratedthat retreat and now Obama’s taking it to extraordinarylengths far beyond what any other president has ever done before.But, you know, I’m an entrepreneur, and so I’m an optimist.I do think it’s possible to reverse that trend. I don’t think we’reyet in an irreversible decline, but I do think we’re going to haveto make some serious changes fairly soon. We’re going bankrupt,for one thing. Unless we’re willing to take that seriously and dealwith it without raising taxes and choking <strong>of</strong>f the enterprise <strong>of</strong>America, unless we’re willing to deal with that, then I see declineas inevitable. But I’m still hopeful right now!Palmer: Do you think that capitalism creates conformity ordoes it create space for diversity? I’m thinking about people wholike kosher food or halal food or religious or cultural or sexualminorities . . .24
- Page 2 and 3: The Morality of CapitalismWhat Your
- Page 4 and 5: ContentsIntroduction: The Morality
- Page 6 and 7: Introduction: The Morality of Capit
- Page 8 and 9: China, Morocco, the United States,
- Page 10 and 11: in a friendly sense.” 9 The word
- Page 12 and 13: Marx saw the “bourgeoisie” as i
- Page 14 and 15: usinesses rising and falling more r
- Page 16 and 17: and one an economist, and an interv
- Page 18: Section IThe Virtues ofEntrepreneur
- Page 21 and 22: is why I was mentioning the sophomo
- Page 23 and 24: our society are motivated by purpos
- Page 25 and 26: promote microfinance in poor countr
- Page 27: ownership of wealth, was highly str
- Page 31 and 32: without a strong business sector th
- Page 34 and 35: lightning rod and Watt’s steam en
- Page 36 and 37: Competition and CooperationBy David
- Page 38 and 39: advocates of “back to nature”
- Page 40 and 41: that the associations within civil
- Page 42 and 43: For-Profit Medicine and the Compass
- Page 44: Profit and CompassionThat’s too s
- Page 48 and 49: The Paradox of MoralityBy Mao Yushi
- Page 50 and 51: after assessing the situation, sett
- Page 52 and 53: efrigerators and color TVs, are onl
- Page 54 and 55: epair trade are crowded out by the
- Page 56 and 57: person, followed the principle of e
- Page 58 and 59: if in return for A taking the bigge
- Page 60 and 61: The Moral Logic of Equality and Ine
- Page 62 and 63: equality in exchange is economicall
- Page 64 and 65: eliminate or to establish inequalit
- Page 66 and 67: earned by the poorest 10% of the po
- Page 68 and 69: Adam Smith and the Myth of GreedBy
- Page 70 and 71: them to lobby the state to create c
- Page 72 and 73: strangers, but when we haggle for t
- Page 74 and 75: Ayn Rand and Capitalism: The Moral
- Page 76 and 77: the welfare state, which redistribu
- Page 78 and 79:
Welfarism: The Unchosen ObligationT
- Page 80 and 81:
Egalitarianism: “Fair” Distribu
- Page 82 and 83:
A worker is hired because of the an
- Page 84 and 85:
To live by reason we must accept in
- Page 86 and 87:
Economic outcomes in the market—t
- Page 88:
is a social asset is incompatible w
- Page 92 and 93:
The Market Economy and the Distribu
- Page 94 and 95:
no unfavorable, economic results. O
- Page 96 and 97:
owner, actual or potential, reflect
- Page 98 and 99:
losses prompted by the chance of, o
- Page 100 and 101:
We are not saying, of course, that
- Page 102 and 103:
well-being reflects a potentially c
- Page 104:
discrepancies. The difference was c
- Page 108 and 109:
Global Capitalism and JusticeBy Jun
- Page 110 and 111:
preferences, and infrastructure. It
- Page 112 and 113:
Human Betterment through Globalizat
- Page 114 and 115:
any particular sophistication. Afte
- Page 116 and 117:
These young people are returning be
- Page 118 and 119:
etterment through exchange and the
- Page 120 and 121:
of diverse cultures. In this manner
- Page 122 and 123:
primitive magical-religious communi
- Page 124 and 125:
to censure, repression, and margina
- Page 126 and 127:
That is why the best defense of our
- Page 128 and 129:
A Little Further Reading for Fun an
- Page 130 and 131:
Dr. Tom G. Palmer is executive vice
- Page 132 and 133:
14 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
- Page 134 and 135:
Index of Proper Names(Chinese names
- Page 139 and 140:
The Pierre F. and Enid Goodrich Fou
- Page 141 and 142:
Students For LibertyA Free Academy,
- Page 143 and 144:
Additional Resources for LibertyThe
- Page 145:
“We need to change the narrative