BCT Editorial – 8/19/07

This page was last updated on August 27, 2007.

Bottom line; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 19, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“China is the Wild West of capitalism in today’s global economy.

“It’s time to tame that frontier.

“From toys, toothpaste and pet food to who knows what else, products are being churned out in China without regard to public health and safety.

“The latest fiasco came last week when Mattel Inc., the nation’s largest toy-maker, announced recalls for 9 million Chinese-made toys, including popular Barbie, Polly Pocket and ‘Cars’ movie items, and warned that more could be ordered off store shelves because of lead paint and tiny magnets that could be swallowed.

“The recalls came nearly two weeks after Mattel recalled 1.5 million Fisher-Price infant toys worldwide, which were also made in China, because of possible lead-paint hazards for children.

“It’s time for safety standards in China to catch up to the market. And if China and the companies doing business there won’t do that, the U.S. government must step in.

“This isn’t a knock against corporations or capitalism. However, corporations are amoral and capitalism can be cruel. What matters are results. If a Chinese subcontractor can cut corners and get away with it, he’s going to do so. If those up the chain can boost their profits by keeping expenses low, they’re going to do that.”

[RWC] When a Times editorial declares, “This isn’t a knock against corporations or capitalism,” that’s pretty much a guarantee what precedes or follows was/is “a knock against corporations or capitalism.”

In what ways can capitalism “be cruel?” Maybe the editorial author’s personal definition of capitalism and its role in society would be a good place to start.

As a reminder, Merriam-Webster’s primary definition for cruel is “disposed to inflict pain or suffering.”

Also note the comment that “corporations are amoral.” While technically correct, the author knows “amoral” sounds bad even though it really means neither immoral nor moral. As a reminder, the Times too is owned by a private amoral corporation.

Also note the use of “corporations” instead of “businesses.” Again, the intent is not positive.

“Eventually, consumers benefit through lower prices on the goods they buy. But at what price to their health and safety?

“Mattel says it is stepping up its oversight and testing in its production processes, and there’s no doubt that it will do so. For how long? What happens once the spotlight gets turned off?

“What about other companies with lower profiles and profits and less prestige than Mattel? Are they going to be as vigilant? If the penalty for getting caught is less than potential profits, why not go for it?

“Capitalism is an efficient means of allocating resources, and the less government interferes in the process the better it is.

“But when public health and safety are placed at risk, government should and must step in.

“China and the companies that are doing business there should be given the chance to clean up their acts. If they don’t, though, the federal government must fill the enforcement void. It has a different bottom line than corporations and the Chinese - the health and safety of its people.”

[RWC] What about businesses that are not corporations? The federal government’s “bottom line” is “the health and safety of its people?” On what planet? The federal government’s “bottom line” is all about acquiring more power and getting bigger.

Don’t get me wrong. The issue of potentially dangerous products coming to the U.S. from Red China or anywhere else needs to be addressed and there’s probably a role – hopefully minimal – in this process for government. I just don’t have the editorial’s view of the world that businesses are evil and government is a benevolent protector.