Greed--Not Kindness

[ivbinconned]

Greed--Not Kindness--Gets Things Done
By John Stossel

"Who's John Stossel?"

That was Virgil Rosanke's reaction when "20/20" interviewed him for one of my TV specials. Without Rosanke and others like him, I couldn't have a steak dinner tonight, but I and most of the people he makes dinners possible for are unknown to him. He makes our dinners possible anyway.

Is Virgil Rosanke a philanthropist? No. Is he a government worker? Not that either. He's just a guy who delivers propane to heat water for cattle to drink. Why does he do it? To make money.

If pursuing profit is greed, economist Walter Williams told me, then greed is good, because it drives us to do many good things. "Those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with: supermarkets, computers, FedEx." By contrast, areas "where people say we're motivated by 'caring'" -- public education, public housing etc. -- "are the areas of disaster in our country. . . . How much would get done," Williams wondered, "if it all depended on human love and kindness?"

Greed gets people to cooperate. If you want to benefit from other greedy people, you have to make sure they benefit from you. Consider one of the wonders of our age, the supermarket. There are thousands of products on the shelves. How'd they get there?

When I posed that question about just one of those thousands of products -- a piece of beef I bought for my dinner -- I found a trail back to an Iowa farm. That's how I learned about Virgil Rosanke, and how he learned about me.

We taped David Wiese and his family, farmers in Manning, Iowa, as they put in 14-hour days fixing fences, digging ditches, harvesting hay, and feeding the cattle. They don't do it for me and my neighbors -- but I'm glad they do it.

"Do you think it's because they love people in New York?" Williams asked. "No, they love themselves. And by promoting their own self-interest, they make sure New Yorkers have beef."

The Wieses are just the first in a long series of people who, by caring about themselves, make sure I get my steak. Wanda Nelson keeps the packing house clean. Rosanke delivers propane. Other people slaughter the cattle and butcher the beef; they rely on people who make their knives, their overalls and their protective gear. Then there are the people who make the plastic that seals the meat, who run the machines that do the sealing, who pack the meat in boxes, make the boxes, inspect the boxes, and run the freezer facilities. Still other people track orders by bar code, which means they need the people who make the bar code machines. Eventually, packed steak is delivered to Randall Gilbert, a truck driver, who hauls it to New York.

No one person made my dinner possible. It took thousands of people to get me the food. And none of them did it for me. As economist Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Rosanke and the others don't particularly care if some TV correspondent gets his steak, yet they cooperate to make it happen, motivated by self-interest -- what many call greed. Think about that next time you listen to my colleagues sneer at the "greed" and "selfishness" of private business. They don't realize that the institution they celebrate, government, is far less effective at serving humanity.

"In a free market, you get more for yourself by serving your fellow man," said economist Williams. "You don't have to care about him, just serve him. I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers in terms of beef. If it all depended on human love and kindness, I doubt whether you would have one cow in New York."

Does anything get done based on "human love and kindness"? Well, a nonprofit group called City Harvest collects donations of restaurants' surplus food for the poor. But where does that food come from? Greedy people like Virgil Rosanke produce it, and greedy restaurateurs buy it. Kindness can only give away the goods self-love provides.

[rkaiser]

Hard to argue ivbinconned except-----

This individual greed or self interest has been exploited by the greater greed of multinational companies and money traders who do very little to make this process occur but take more and more of the middle out of the product each and every day.

The globalism movement of the past 20 years has led to rules that favour the greed that comes in economy of scale. If it were only the greed of individuals that put the steak on the fellows plate, I believe we would all be better off.

I do not consider myself much of a government supporter, but somehow this trend has let the greed of the top end of our society take precedence.

Reading a book about the fall of globalism lately. This top heavy capitalist approach that we have taken for the past couple decades has done very little good for the evening of classes. History is all about movement toward and away from free trade and protectionism. We need a mixture of both. The balance shifted to rules that favoured those who could access world markets easily, but this has done little to help the lower class, or the poverty of this world. It will shift again. Globalism has failed the poor, and has failed the bottom of every production chain.The greed of the producer has left him with little more than pride in his meager profits.

I don't have the answer for where we should be going, but wish that ivbinconned'd story could be a bit more real. I wish that the price of the steak on the fellows plate was more related to the greed of individuals and less on the greed of the middlemen who do little if anything for the profit they receive.

[ivbinconned]

I concur with your comments but the point of his argument is that NONE of this would happen if we relied on the government to do it for us.

In fact the governments role in the economy it could be argued is what has allowed the crime that you describe to go on, unchecked.

Government has allowed global monopoly industries to flurish while they regulate to death the competition that otherwise might imerge.

We must not confuse capitalisim with monopolism, there is a big difference, the latter can only flurish when governments pave the way.

[rkaiser]

Agreed ivbinconned - however - governments are the only ones that can change the rules back again. Now that the trend is here, do you think that the monopolies or oligopolies will stop it on their own? Not a chance. The people must stop it. And the only way that the people can stop it in a democratic peaceful way is through government.

I am not calling for more government, just different government. Not left wing government, simply government that sees the folly of uncontrolled capitalism in the hands of a very few.

[grassfarmer]

Sounds like a good plan rkaiser, but rather a tough sell in Alberta I should think!

[rkaiser]

A tough sell anywhere in the world where the hope, and sometimes reality, of captalist gains by individuals runs high. Even those of us who see the folly are hypocrytes. I make an effort to buy local etc. but am drawn into the lure of short term price advantages of companies who take advantage of the rules of our multinational run economy.

Any ideas grassfarmer? This is a pretty big picture issue. We can find innovative ways to look after ourselves and gain advantage over other cattle producers, but can we find ways to feed the poverty stricken folks of the world while not chopping off a bunch of heads like the Frenchmen did?

[cowman]

Have been away for a few days taking some R & R in Sin city! Good to get away once in awhile and see how the other half lives!
I guess the question is has the government acted in a way that is best for the people? Have they created and upheld laws that benifit the citizens of this country? And I truly don't know.
I think it would be safe to say that the citizen spends less of their income on food than at just about anytime in history? If you believe that then I guess you could say the government has created a situation that benifits the majority of its citizens?
If Tyson, Cargill, or whoever can process that steer cheaper than anyone else, or if Safeway or Sobeys can get it sold cheaper than anyone else....then aren't they doing their job? Aren't they in fact the most efficient way of getting the beef to the consumer?
If Walmart can sell the citizens a product more efficiently than Mom and Pop...doesn't that benifit the majority of the people?
When the state tries to create artificial barriers to a free market it usually ends in disaster. No government should be allowed to pick winners and losers, because that does not allow the best to rise to the top.
If you don't like Cargill or Walmart, simply don't sell or buy from them.
Just my opinion.

[rkaiser]

Okay cowman - I'll give one example of a RULE that is allowing the multinationals to "control" things at the moment. I am a true believer that the extreme end of capitalism is closer to communism than you might think. Governments runs scared and bow to multinational demands in this world. Is that not akin to simply top heavy government.

Example - BSE testing for export marketing purposes "could" and I stress the word could, affect the captive supply of cull cattle that are producing extreme profits for packers and retailers in Canada. The majority of people in the industry including most producers support the right to test cattle for BSE if it "could" potentially stop this captive supply and allow a more natural supply and demand market for our cull cattle. The packers don't want testing and thus a rule.

Lots more rules cowman including many that allow corporate welfare to multinational companies, tax advantage for building etc. etc.

Should we stand back and allow this to go on unabated? Is this true capitalism at it's finest? Or has this gotten out of hand, just like it has numerous times in history. Should we wait long enough until the guillotine comes back out?

[cowman]

Well I think we can all become corporations if we choose, but whatever.
Now what party were you going to vote for that was going to reign in the corporations? Maybe the NDP?
Maybe old Madam Guillotine might be the only answer, but I doubt we are ready for that? Most people are fairly satisfied with the status quoe?

[grassfarmer]

Rkaiser, I don't have any great ideas how to bring about desirable change working within our current political scenario.Obviously overthrowing the government or beheading people isn't the answer. Perhaps the recent example of the young folks in Ottawa protesting the lack of action over the terrible situation in Darfur could show us the way ahead?
It's true that we are all hypocritical with our views - I go occasionally to Peavey Mart to do some bulk shopping for farm supplies as they are substantially cheaper than my local stores. Some times you have to pick your battles - to change anything we need to have a profitable business first so I justify these purchases by saying they allow me to survive to fight another day against bigger problem causers than Peavey Mart. All corporations are certainly not evil and they are not all equal. Some need reigned in way more than others.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman, "No government should be allowed to pick winners and losers, because that does not allow the best to rise to the top."
That's kind of like saying that schools shouldn't take action on bullying... because that would not allow the best to rise to the top. Depends how you define "the best"

"Most people are fairly satisfied with the status quoe? " - Yes, sadly they are, on a world scale that means turning your backing on starving millions on a daily basis. But hey that's OK we are doing real well in our little world pretending that our lifestyle isn't supported by keeping the poor of the world in abject poverty.

I'm ashamed sometimes when I think of the treatment a good friend of mine receives here in Alberta. An immigrant dairy farmer whose business finances his desire to help others. In the last couple of years he has lobbied on behalf of Canadian agricultural producers in all sectors, travelled to Brazil to support the demonstrations and meetings attended by primary ag producers from many corners of the globe aimed at getting a fairer deal for farmers. He has travelled to Europe to lobby the authorities of the UN and EU to increase their aid to 3rd world countries, organised and established through fundraising and physical labour an orphanage in Malawi for children suffering from AIDS. Travelled to Guatemala and built weaving looms for peasants who literally have nothing - and now sells their products on a "fair trade" basis in Alberta. All this done on top of a hefty local committment to supporting youth centres, community drop in centres, church, food banks and leading opposition to the oil and gas sectors unregulated expansion.
Yet someone of this calibre, so much committment, doing so much good, gets ridiculed by the fools in the ABP and some in the Alberta government as being a "socialist with nothing to contribute". I'd like to see how their contributions stack up in comparison.

[ivbinconned]

About 15 years ago I read a book written by Dianne Francis (forget the name) that was excellent. She described and compared the differences bettween the U.S. and their anti- combines legislation and the un-fettered monopolizing activities that go on in Canada by corporate interests.

Her summation was that the U.S. didn't have it perfect, but for the country was alot better for its people. things mayt have gotten worse there..don't know.

One example cowman is the lax regulation in Canada in regards to the packers and their limits on feeder cattle numbers, as compared to the states!!

We know how that hurts!!

[cowman]

Now lets just forget the names Cargill and Tyson for a minute? Lets just say we have a farmer named Joe? He decides to build a packing plant, but also feeds cattle? Does he have that right?
The last time I looked we were supposed to be a free market and anyone who wanted to could raise cattle? Or is that not permitted now? What if a Cargill or Tyson said to hell with you guys...we will never buy another steer from any of you, we will raise our own? Would that be their right?
When the state starts telling you who you can buy from, or sell to, I would suggest something is very wrong?
If cattle producers don't like what Cargill is paying, simply don't sell to Cargill! Build your own packing house and go to it. Or pack it in.
Just my opinion.

[cowman]

grassfarmer: I doubt anyone is riduculing him for his good works, but maybe his concept of how business should be conducted here in this country? And I'm sure not going to sit here and stand up for the ABP, as it is an organization I don't believe in! Now that doesn't mean I don't respect some of the people who are ABP directors or supporters...that is their right and I like to believe that people are honorable and try to do the right thing...as they see it! I really don't believe ABP supporters are evil or something and involved in some sort of conspiracy to make Cargill our master? I think they are just guys who think they can help the industry and are doing their best? Probably just like your friend?

[grassfarmer]

Cowman, your "no government intervention" argument is flawed in a big way though - remember Cargill and Tyson were given huge Government subsidies (our tax payer money) to locate here yet the same government refuse to give anything to producer owned packing plant proposals. As rkaiser noted there isn't so much between extreme captalism and communism - under both systems everyone is equal, some are just more equal than others.