"the era of shareholder capitalism is over"

These words I read recently won't let me go. They were said by Biden as he was asked to explain his economic program for growth. No one picked up on it. I've heard no further discussion or account of this idea from any media pundits. Plus, it sounds so good to so many progressives, those advocating for "the oppressed little people." Let's just get rid of those nasty capitalists and the economy will be fair for everyone.


Let me first say, this is not an attempt to bash a political candidate. This is about political ideology. After all, Biden simply parrots what he is told. If you pressed him for what he really said, he'd likely say, "I really don't mean it." So, what did he really say? What's behind this idea that frames his economic plan for our country?

The fact is, we really don't know unless and until he tells us more. He can mean the end of a type of shareholder is at hand under his leadership rather than meaning shareholders themselves may no longer exist. There is a movement among business leaders that agree with the idea that greedy capitalists, those who are shortsighted and focus only on profit, are a problem. The emerging (but not new) emphasis is on "responsible capitalism," that which balances needs of all stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, customers, and the community as a whole. I contend that this is just proper capitalism, where mission and economics intertwine in decision-making. Maybe he simply means shareholders should share more of their wealth with those who are not shareholders.

In the absence of clarity on this statement, I am compelled (can't not do it) to explore what it would mean if he meant that his leadership would eliminate private citizens from being shareholders. BTW, many left leaning people do mean this by this statement and would push him this direction.

We start with what do we mean by economics? Economics are the systems of production and distribution of goods and services. There are really only two approaches, Marxist/socialism or capitalism. The difference is determined by the source and method of production and distribution. Marxist/socialism prefers the government be the source. Capitalism prefers that free people using their own financial resources and methods are the driving factors.

Currently the US economy is about 80% capitalism and 20% socialism. It seems Biden is advocating more socialism, since he wants to end or reduce the influence of free-thinking private citizens on the economy. What would this really mean?

It there are no shareholders other than govt, there are no investors, no private capital used for the purposes of providing for society. This means, no small business owners, no pension plans, no 401-K's, no corporate taxes. This would mean that the government owns everything. They make and sell all products and provide services. This requires all innovation to come from the government. Everyone works for the government.

If this were the case, would there be a Starbucks? An iPhone? Amazon? Netflix? Google?no pro sports, and on and on? What would the prosperity of our country be? Would there be air travel to other countries? Could people take cruises?

Not likely. Why? Because the innovation required to advance standard of living requires risking capital for the return it generates. Missions to improve the lives of people must be aligned with financial incentives. In Marxist/socialism there is only mission. Some missions are oriented toward government provision. The founding fathers envisioned that govt provides protection against outside attacks and a justice system to maintain civil order. What about other missions?
     feed the masses, provide healthcare, education, recreation, entertainment, etc

The voting machinery of free markets, consumer choice, would not exist. We the people would only have influence of the economic system through periodic voting for the politicians, who would control products and services of the economy according to their wishes.

While it's likely Biden, or no one running for Presidency on the left, would advocate a 100% Marxist/socialists' economy. Practically speaking the political ideology at risk in any election is whether we move toward more socialist economic policies or less. This is not a moral choice, but a preference of which approach to economics brings the greatest prosperity and fairness (both of which are subject to opinion).

Forget all the details of campaigning. That's just too confusing and complex. This economic issue is ultimately what people are voting on.

In the end, the American public will get what they wish for.