An economic system consists of the institutions and methods by which resources are allocated and distributed. The primary distinction between the different systems is the degree to which governments participate.

Alexander Hammond, a researcher with  the Foundation for Economic Education wrote, an article titled  “Anti-Capitalism: Trendy but Wrong.” He acknowledged the anti-capitalist protestors who periodically take to the streets in capitals across the world to express their dissatisfaction with capitalist systems and the unfair outcomes they allegedly create. Disdain for capitalism also appears in the media. The headline pronouncing “capitalism is dead” came from a quote by billionaire Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who amassed his fortune thanks to a capitalist system.

The Colorado Education Association, also known as the state teachers union, joined the anti-capitalist trend. On May 4, Joshua Q. Nelson of Fox News reported the CEA passed a resolution declaring  “capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor and resources.” A fashion trend is adopted without thought or consequence. But an economic system thoughtlessly adopted could bring poverty, famine and death. Ask yourself. Is allowing the Colorado Education Association’s efforts to destroy capitalism in our children’s best interests?

Teacher unions collect dues and solely represent the teachers who voluntarily make up their membership. Like all labor unions, they have no skin in the game. Union leadership has no expertise to advise anyone about capitalism or any other economic system. Public education employees are taxpayer funded. Growing the economy, innovation, competing for customers and creating wealth are foreign concepts when taxpayers provide the funding.

The opposite of capitalism is a command economy in which the government owns the means of production and decides the allocation of resources. Photographs of people in lines for bread and milk with empty store shelves in the background were commonplace in the old Soviet Union as well as China, North Korea and Cuba. In a command economy, the government isn’t interested in the desires of people or market forces. Government decides what and for whom products will be produced.

Anuj Nakhede explained in a story for The Times of India the motive behind production in a planned economy isn’t to gain maximum profit, but to distribute resources equally. This sounds ideal on paper. But no government is capable of running an economy. The result is equal misery for the populace.

Venezuela, a country with abundant oil reserves, plunged from prosperity to poverty because of socialist policies eliminating free markets. The people of North Korea and Cuba struggle to meet basic needs under a command economy. Scarcity and starvation described the people of China and Russia until they introduced free market reforms to an extent. Socialism doesn’t produce prosperity.

Capitalism is a market system in which each individual or business works in its own interest and maximizes profits based on its decisions. Economic transactions take place in markets where buyers and sellers voluntarily interact. Competition for customers requires businesses to produce better products than their rivals. This leads to developing improved, cost-effective products.

Why would any thinking person support a demonstrably failed economic system? Proposing to swap capitalism for a command economy is dangerous and
ill-informed. There appears to be a concerted push by groups in America toward socialism, which can’t become the law of the land until they destroy capitalism. History is replete with evidence socialism will destroy the quality of life enjoyed in America for more than 200 years.

Is this anti-capitalist trend an alarming display of economic ignorance? Or is this a deliberate action to sabotage the well-being of the United States?