When I was a child, one of the TV shows playing was called, The Defenders.  That show always began with a narrator stating something like:  “Democracy is a very bad form of government; but I ask you never to forget – all the others are so much worse.”  At the time, I wasn’t sure how I felt about that statement; but as I’ve grown, I’ve come to view democracy as a very good form of government, so long as its citizens participate in the government in thoughtful and meaningful ways.

As an American, I also believe in Capitalism – but it too has some caveats.  For Capitalism to work correctly, the individuals in a given nation need to have the Opportunity to excel, the Resources to apply their skills, and the Morality to develop their trade with honesty and fairness.

We have been blessed in this country with many opportunities for growth, and have many financial and natural resources from which to draw.  Moreover, we have a government and a citizenry that welcomes innovation and respects ingenuity.  (Note that not all countries fit this mold; so for them, Capitalism might not be ideal.)

Even with our many opportunities and resources, however, we Americans can improve by applying a better moral framework to our capitalistic activities.  Let me clarify.  When I first learned about Capitalism, I was taught that it benefited both the consumer and the innovator.  The innovator, at least in theory, benefited by having the best product/service in the market, the largest customer base, and the highest income stream.  The consumer benefited by receiving the best product/service based on fair competition, and by purchasing that product/service at a fair, market-driven price.

Basically, Capitalism works best when product/service innovators compete on a level playing field.  But what happens when the marketplace is no longer a level playing field?  What happens when the leading market innovators use their money and influence to affect policy and product/service exposure opportunities, thereby giving themselves a distinct advantage over the newer and less-exposed competition?

I’m not saying anything new here.  We have all experienced companies that control their market sector in one way or another.  In that environment, prices are no longer driven by the market, but rather by what the company wants to charge.  In addition, the drive to innovate and produce the best possible product/service is diminished, and consumers must settle for a diminishing selection of products/services that are not as good as they could be, and that cost more than they should.

My message is simple – Capitalism only works well when there is true competition and open markets.  Otherwise, greed wins the day, the consumer suffers, and we are denied true and robust innovation.  Unfortunately, true competition and open markets are ideals that are very hard to achieve consistently, since it is human nature to give ourselves as much personal advantage as we can to succeed in a competitive world.  But these natural tendencies are the enemy of Capitalism.  So, the challenge is to embody a moral framework in our business dealings; and that may or may not be realistic or even possible.