The Slam


The NYT's continues to parade their bias:  anti-capitalism and anti-libertarian.

The NYT's has made some interesting statements over time.  Such assertions as the Tea Party is racist.   Another is that Libertarians are radical.   The Paul Krugmanites are alive and well under the guise of high performing media. 


In the NYT’s dated May 12th, 2012, an opinion article entitled Capitalists and Other Psychopaths stated: 

“A recent study found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,”

Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.

The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form, and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior.”


The author goes on to define capitalism as based upon the “desire for sensuous indulgence.”  He further conjures up the history of corporate malfeasance as proof positive.


Why debate the question of freedom if the conclusion is that it leads to such debauchery:   “Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.”  Feeling his oats goes on to badmouth business schools. 


Why stop there, when you can dive deeper in the ethical pool:  “There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones.” 


Having thrown out any sense of logic, he continues on this rant:  “Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.”


This article is as non-sensible and emotive as it is incorrect.    The implied social policy is that this system which this author calls capitalism needs strong supervision or it will lead to the rich taking over by whatever means possible.   One is compelled by this diatribe to ignore the backbone of what is capitalism and its ethical nature.  The alternative is lack of freedom and individual choice and individual striving, for that would be too greedy.


This is another in the long line of articles that fires in all directions emotive bullets hoping to hit the proverbial duck.   Let’s hope the duck survives to ask more questions.



Reactions are?