The benefits of capitalism are beyond debate. It is the most logical and efficient system of production and distribution of economic benefits. But it is not all sweetness and light.
The evolution of our food chain is all part of the relentless and progressive need to show those who have invested capital, that managers of their investments can justify the often-princely salaries they are paid to outperform the competition.
The bottom line is that extravagant profits, duplicated in subsequent quarters, too often translate to no progress rather than continued success.
This process of meeting the pressure of showing increased profitability on a regular and continuous basis eventually hits the wall. At some point this process becomes counter-productive. Products and people begin to suffer from each additional cost cutting measure. As efficiency leads to bigness, managers eventually know little of the business, they know financial engineering.
Absolutely right. Capitalism’s strength lies in its capacity to generate productivity and innovation—but left unchecked, it begins to devour the very foundations it rests on. When the goal becomes short-term shareholder returns above all else, we stop investing in people, communities, and even the long-term health of the enterprise itself.
What you describe is exactly how monopolies and mega-firms turn efficiency into a weapon: squeezing labor, gutting quality, hollowing out supply chains, and calling it “growth.” Managers become detached from the real work and the real world—operating spreadsheets instead of understanding the production floor or the community their company serves.
At that point, it’s not capitalism: it’s extraction in a business suit. And the social costs (burnout, inequality, environmental degradation) are paid by everyone else. The question isn’t whether markets are useful, but who they’re designed to serve.
Thank you for writing and spelling it for me. I suspected what you wrote about. But, didn’t really do much of my own reading and researching on my own. With so much being thrown at us everyday it’s hard to keep up. I’m not surprised, great article spelling it out. We should be all concerned. But this topic isn’t on the public minds.
You might like this essay, now many years old. Michael Merrill, “Cash Is Good to Eat: Self-Sufficiency and Exchange in the Rural Economy of the United States.” (1976)
Being raised on my Granddaddy's Kentucky farm in the late 1940's, we raised most of what we ate. So, I've lived this corporate transition and loss of local control. The family farm is dead. And so is the community and culture in which is was rooted.
Asking for a friend, who is aging and needs money for life and health reasons, with land to sell. What should my friend do so the money helps but doesn’t fall into the hands of those controllers who gather power by buying farmland?
Great question—and one that more of us should be asking. If your friend is in a position to sell land but wants to avoid handing it over to agribusiness or speculative buyers, there are some alternatives worth exploring. Selling or leasing to a land trust, a cooperative, or even a younger local farmer committed to sustainable practices can keep the land in community hands. There are also programs that support conservation easements or shared equity models where the land’s future use is protected, even after the sale. It may take more time and care, but it’s one way to turn a necessary sale into a form of resistance—and legacy.
Thanks for this excellent presentation.
Thank you for your suggestions James!
The benefits of capitalism are beyond debate. It is the most logical and efficient system of production and distribution of economic benefits. But it is not all sweetness and light.
The evolution of our food chain is all part of the relentless and progressive need to show those who have invested capital, that managers of their investments can justify the often-princely salaries they are paid to outperform the competition.
The bottom line is that extravagant profits, duplicated in subsequent quarters, too often translate to no progress rather than continued success.
This process of meeting the pressure of showing increased profitability on a regular and continuous basis eventually hits the wall. At some point this process becomes counter-productive. Products and people begin to suffer from each additional cost cutting measure. As efficiency leads to bigness, managers eventually know little of the business, they know financial engineering.
Absolutely right. Capitalism’s strength lies in its capacity to generate productivity and innovation—but left unchecked, it begins to devour the very foundations it rests on. When the goal becomes short-term shareholder returns above all else, we stop investing in people, communities, and even the long-term health of the enterprise itself.
What you describe is exactly how monopolies and mega-firms turn efficiency into a weapon: squeezing labor, gutting quality, hollowing out supply chains, and calling it “growth.” Managers become detached from the real work and the real world—operating spreadsheets instead of understanding the production floor or the community their company serves.
At that point, it’s not capitalism: it’s extraction in a business suit. And the social costs (burnout, inequality, environmental degradation) are paid by everyone else. The question isn’t whether markets are useful, but who they’re designed to serve.
Thank you. Yes, you have clarified precisely what I was trying to say.
Thank you for writing and spelling it for me. I suspected what you wrote about. But, didn’t really do much of my own reading and researching on my own. With so much being thrown at us everyday it’s hard to keep up. I’m not surprised, great article spelling it out. We should be all concerned. But this topic isn’t on the public minds.
You might like this essay, now many years old. Michael Merrill, “Cash Is Good to Eat: Self-Sufficiency and Exchange in the Rural Economy of the United States.” (1976)
https://rutgers.academia.edu/MichaelMerrill
1976, Radical History Review
man, I was having a hard time finding this. Thanks for the link.
Being raised on my Granddaddy's Kentucky farm in the late 1940's, we raised most of what we ate. So, I've lived this corporate transition and loss of local control. The family farm is dead. And so is the community and culture in which is was rooted.
Asking for a friend, who is aging and needs money for life and health reasons, with land to sell. What should my friend do so the money helps but doesn’t fall into the hands of those controllers who gather power by buying farmland?
Great question—and one that more of us should be asking. If your friend is in a position to sell land but wants to avoid handing it over to agribusiness or speculative buyers, there are some alternatives worth exploring. Selling or leasing to a land trust, a cooperative, or even a younger local farmer committed to sustainable practices can keep the land in community hands. There are also programs that support conservation easements or shared equity models where the land’s future use is protected, even after the sale. It may take more time and care, but it’s one way to turn a necessary sale into a form of resistance—and legacy.