The author's pivot to enlightened centrism at the end is an unfortunate miss where he might have instead argued that this example and all of the other broader institutional bust-outs he describes or alludes to are just natural, predictable consequences of unregulated capitalism.
It's still an ideological position, but it's got a more solid footing than the political one. Reasonable people can disagree on the effects or values of different monetary policies under different political environments, but nobody can arrive at the view that they're the same without being pretty ignorant on the subject. "This is the nature of capitalism" [1] can become a discussion between sane people, vs., "there's a 70-year-long grand conspiracy to loot society and it's because men aren't men anymore", for which no charitable interpretation exists.
Some people will be quick enough to point out that everything that happened in the BB&B case was completely legal, and maybe even right or correct to do under certain circumstances, that there shouldn't even be disagreement that this is the house capitalism builds. Under this system, some people can build a business (which may have some unfortunate side-effects in some communities or on the environment), and the same people or other people can come along and then loot the business for everything they can get away with, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. At the moment, there are lots and lots of businesses that have ripened on the tree of capitalism, and there are lots of people with the skills and greed required to loot them. Sure, it sucks for consumers and the public [2], but how many times in history have they really had a say in how society should be run?
[1]: Please don't misread this as an argument that other -isms are better. That's not an argument anyone can productively have on this website.
[2]: Arguably. There are plenty of people that will counter-argue that society is actually better off when this sort of thing happens because, I dunno, people got cheap toasters or something.
You lost me in the first sentence. It's an odd turn of phrase to claim the essay's conclusion was a "miss" just because it doesn't align with your ideology. It's more honest to just say you disagree with the conclusion.
But the company belongs to the owners. If they want to sell it, it’s none of your business. If the new owners want debt financing, that’s none of your business either.
I think there's a broad conception that businesses exist not just as a vehicle to earn money for their owners, but as a component of society at some scale. That a store is not merely a collection of goods, but a cultural touchstone, as the stores we visit and the goods we consume are the majority of our culture. As those goods vanish or are perverted, or as those stores shutter or become something different, there is a sense of grief and betrayal -- of a member of the community going away or breaking our trust. This doesn't align with any reasonable view of a collection of shares reflecting ownership components of a company selling overpriced soap. But I think this view of the world, of large corporations as society fixtures, explains why so many corporations are expected to "behave well", and why people are mad when they don't.
> "there's a 70-year-long grand conspiracy to loot society and it's because men aren't men anymore", for which no charitable interpretation exists.
what actually are you looking for? you want the author to challenge unregulated capitalism? to convince citizens that we’re right to reign it in, because we’re right to defend ourselves against the rapacious scammers in both the economic and political realms?
because if so, just re-read the last 4 paragraphs. pay attention to the groups he calls out, and if you’re still not satisfied then explore the possible meanings of this part in particular — which he bolded — and recognize that the “weak men” here most probably includes you and i and 95% of the author’s audience.
> I am full of hope that weak men will choose to reclaim their autonomy of mind
It's still an ideological position, but it's got a more solid footing than the political one. Reasonable people can disagree on the effects or values of different monetary policies under different political environments, but nobody can arrive at the view that they're the same without being pretty ignorant on the subject. "This is the nature of capitalism" [1] can become a discussion between sane people, vs., "there's a 70-year-long grand conspiracy to loot society and it's because men aren't men anymore", for which no charitable interpretation exists.
Some people will be quick enough to point out that everything that happened in the BB&B case was completely legal, and maybe even right or correct to do under certain circumstances, that there shouldn't even be disagreement that this is the house capitalism builds. Under this system, some people can build a business (which may have some unfortunate side-effects in some communities or on the environment), and the same people or other people can come along and then loot the business for everything they can get away with, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. At the moment, there are lots and lots of businesses that have ripened on the tree of capitalism, and there are lots of people with the skills and greed required to loot them. Sure, it sucks for consumers and the public [2], but how many times in history have they really had a say in how society should be run?
[1]: Please don't misread this as an argument that other -isms are better. That's not an argument anyone can productively have on this website.
[2]: Arguably. There are plenty of people that will counter-argue that society is actually better off when this sort of thing happens because, I dunno, people got cheap toasters or something.