Jump to content

Minimum wage. Should it be $15?


mustang guy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
You should also know that food prices in general are also not included in inflation data. Around 2011 we had huge increases in food prices and they continue to rise. People have been beat up over it badly and none of it is reflected in your little numbers you are asking me to look up. Gas prices aren't either. Remember that 83% hike we had shortly after Obama started? Yeah, not in the inflation data.

 

Where do you get your facts?

 

"In the United States, unadjusted Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is based on the prices of a market basket of: food (14 percent of total weight), energy (9.3 percent), commodities less food and energy commodities (19.4 percent) and services less energy services (57.3 percent). The last category is divided by: shelter (32.1 percent), medical care services (5.8 percent) and transportation services (5.5 percent)."

 

From the BLS:

 

What goods and services does the CPI cover?

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

  • FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
  • HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
  • APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
  • TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
  • MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
  • RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
  • EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
  • OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Also included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as water and sewerage charges, auto registration fees, and vehicle tolls. In addition, the CPI includes taxes (such as sales and excise taxes) that are directly associated with the prices of specific goods and services. However, the CPI excludes taxes (such as income and Social Security taxes) not directly associated with the purchase of consumer goods and services.

The CPI does not include investment items, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and life insurance. (These items relate to savings and not to day-to-day consumption expenses.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Calculating Annual Inflation Rates

Annual rates of inflation are calculated using 12-month selections of the BLS’s Consumer Price Index.

For example, to calculate the inflation rate for April 2015, take its CPI of "236.599" and subtract from it last year’s April 2014 CPI of "237.072." The result is "-0.473." Divide this number by the April 2014 CPI and then multiply that by 100 and add a % sign.

The result is April’s annual inflation rate of -0.2%.

Edited by dwilawyer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Capitalism features the passive act of making money from money, and the active act of making money by exploiting labor, and the act of private ownership of productive resources.

 

Assuming I agree with this, define for me what is money?

 

then,

 

can you identify another word for the exploitation of labor?

 

then,

 

give me an example of what is meant by private ownership over a productive resource.

 

Now, put them altogether. Are you saying none of these things have existed in past history at the same time, under a single civilization?

 

 

The question lacks all the ingredients I cited for capitalism. Those were:

-Private ownership of productive capacities including natural resources and land

-Exploitation of labor - paying less than labor value

-Putting the making of profit ahead of every other human interest - e.g. amorality

-Making money form money with no work or effort behind it.

 
Before capitalism became the mainstream economic system, feudalism ruled. Feudalism does share some features of capitalism, such as private ownership of resources, and exploitation of labor, but it doesn't particularly feature the amoral drive to put profits ahead of all human interests, and did not feature "financialization" - the art of making money from money with no labor. it also features a unique set of social relations between Lords, Vassals and Serfs, which is quite apart from the business of making a profit. 
 
And let's keep in mind we are talking about historical movements and proclivities, not exact dates, proclamations and orders. As humans went through feudalism, to mercantilism and eventually the fully flowered capitalism, there were generous overlaps, regressions, and non-synchronous events. It was a messy development.
 
In the pre-industrial revolution era, Churches almost all banned "usury" which all by itself would kill one of the most essential features of capitalism. When today, you can borrow from the FED at less than 1% and lend to customers at 33%, this would have been considered utterly immoral in pre-industrial era.
 
USURY
"The concept of “usury” has a long historical life, throughout most of which it has been understood to refer to the practice of charging financial interest in excess of the principle amount of a loan, although in some instances and more especially in more recent times, it has been interpreted as interest above the legal or socially acceptable rate. Accepting this broad definition for the moment, the practice of usury can be traced back approximately four thousand years (Jain, 1929), and during its subsequent history it has been repeatedly condemned, prohibited, scorned and restricted, mainly on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds.  Among its most visible and vocal critics have been the religious institutions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity.  To this list may be added ancient Western philosophers and politicians, as well as various modern socio-economic reformers.  It is the objective of this paper to outline briefly the history of this critique of usury, to examine reasons for its repeated denouncement and, finally, to intuitively assess the relevance of these arguments to today’s predominantly interest-based global economy. " 
 
emphasis added by me. 
 
Today, we work  under MARQUETTE NAT. BANK v. FIRST OF OMAHA CORP., (1978) -  
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'm trying to see your point of view. But again, you seem fixated that capitalism will be the demise of the U.S. yet you can't cite any references to substantiate your assertion. One must take a leap of faith to agree with you. Of course it is because, as you say, capitalism has never been tried in the past, so there are no examples to reference. Okay, well, we disagree on the fine details of what capitalism truly is. Variants have been present in past great civilizations, and I would hold even the U.S. does not exhibit true capitalism today. 

 

I've given references to historical examples of how great civilizations fall. And I'm not talking about one or two civilizations, I'm talking about nearly all of them. You seem to discount them out of hand, which is interesting in and of itself.

 

In my post earlier about Alexander Tyler. Here's a little more:

 

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 

From Bondage to spiritual faith; 
From spiritual faith to great courage; 
From courage to liberty; 
From liberty to abundance; 
From abundance to complacency; 
From complacency to apathy; 
From apathy to dependence; 
From dependence back into bondage." 

 

Notice he said 'always.' He didn't say sometimes or occasionally. And nothing in that cycle hints that greedy men destroyed any of the civilizations he studied. In fact, the cycle is very clear that it is too much dependence that causes civilizations to collapse. Alexander Tyler was a history professor so it's not like he's pulling theories from thin air. Then there is Alexis de Tocqueville, another historian from France, who studied the American system. Neither of these men seem to share your vision that it is capitalism that will destroy us. De Tocqueville is quoted as saying that the American democracy will exist up until the point the public realizes it can vote itself largess from the public treasury. Hmm, combine that with what Tyler says about dependency and...well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are talking about. And it isn't a few greedy men gathering the most resources. 

 

It's not to say you are wrong. You are completely entitled to your opinion. I just happen to believe your position isn't based on fact and seem diametrically opposed to the works of others who have spent their lives studying past great civilizations and what brings them down. 

 

I say we collapse from debt. In the end, I think we have to look back to see what the future might hold. Again, nothing is new under the sun. It's all been tried before. As I said, those who choose to ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

You say we collapse from capitalism. But have no historical reference to substantiate your position.

 

Good enough. One of us is right, the other is wrong.

 

Or perhaps we are both wrong!

 

 

 

Edited by Bella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calculating Annual Inflation Rates Annual rates of inflation are calculated using 12-month selections of the BLS’s Consumer Price Index. For example, to calculate the inflation rate for April 2015, take its CPI of "236.599" and subtract from it last year’s April 2014 CPI of "237.072." The result is "-0.473." Divide this number by the April 2014 CPI and then multiply that by 100 and add a % sign. The result is April’s annual inflation rate of -0.2%.

 

:emotion-21:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Hmm. I'm trying to see your point of view. But again, you seem fixated that capitalism will be the demise of the U.S. yet you can't cite any references to substantiate your assertion. One must take a leap of faith to agree with you. Of course it is because, as you say, capitalism has never been tried in the past, so there are no examples to reference. Okay, well, we disagree on the fine details of what capitalism truly is. Variants have been present in past great civilizations, and I would hold even the U.S. does not exhibit true capitalism today.

I've given references to historical examples of how great civilizations fall. And I'm not talking about one or two civilizations, I'm talking about nearly all of them. You seem to discount them out of hand, which is interesting in and of itself.

In my post earlier about Alexander Tyler. Here's a little more:

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

Notice he said 'always.' He didn't say sometimes or occasionally. And nothing in that cycle hints that greedy men destroyed any of the civilizations he studied. In fact, the cycle is very clear that it is too much dependence that causes civilizations to collapse. Alexander Tyler was a history professor so it's not like he's pulling theories from thin air. Then there is Alexis de Tocqueville, another historian from France, who studied the American system. Neither of these men seem to share your vision that it is capitalism that will destroy us. De Tocqueville is quoted as saying that the American democracy will exist up until the point the public realizes it can vote itself largess from the public treasury. Hmm, combine that with what Tyler says about dependency and...well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are talking about. And it isn't a few greedy men gathering the most resources.

It's not to say you are wrong. You are completely entitled to your opinion. I just happen to believe your position isn't based on fact and seem diametrically opposed to the works of others who have spent their lives studying past great civilizations and what brings them down.

I say we collapse from debt. In the end, I think we have to look back to see what the future might hold. Again, nothing is new under the sun. It's all been tried before. As I said, those who choose to ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

You say we collapse from capitalism. But have no historical reference to substantiate your position.

Good enough. One of us is right, the other is wrong.

Or perhaps we are both wrong!

Who the hell is Alexander Tyler? A history professor where?

If you are refering to the Scottish historian, Tytler, he never said what you claim about the evolution of a democracy. I am positive about that.

What I am not so sure is whether the quote you have in this post about De Tocqueville is accurate. It doesn't sound like him but it has been over 35 yeats since I have read him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my post earlier about Alexander Tyler. Here's a little more:

 

Alexander Tyler (also spelled Tytler) may or may not have written the material you quote.  This is in dispute -- Google it.  As someone writing in the 18th century, he may have been unburdened by any hint of modern historical methods.  The material you cite was used in internet agit-prop after several recent elections.

 

By the way, the U.S. Constitution does not specify the type of economic system the country should have.

 

Is there anything wrong with superimposing decent ethics and morality on morally blind capitalism and market forces?  This would include the avoidance of the usury that everyone from Moses to jo56steph74 has spoken against.

Edited by garyrc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'm trying to see your point of view. But again, you seem fixated that capitalism will be the demise of the U.S. yet you can't cite any references to substantiate your assertion. One must take a leap of faith to agree with you. Of course it is because, as you say, capitalism has never been tried in the past, so there are no examples to reference. Okay, well, we disagree on the fine details of what capitalism truly is. Variants have been present in past great civilizations, and I would hold even the U.S. does not exhibit true capitalism today.

I've given references to historical examples of how great civilizations fall. And I'm not talking about one or two civilizations, I'm talking about nearly all of them. You seem to discount them out of hand, which is interesting in and of itself.

In my post earlier about Alexander Tyler. Here's a little more:

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

Notice he said 'always.' He didn't say sometimes or occasionally. And nothing in that cycle hints that greedy men destroyed any of the civilizations he studied. In fact, the cycle is very clear that it is too much dependence that causes civilizations to collapse. Alexander Tyler was a history professor so it's not like he's pulling theories from thin air. Then there is Alexis de Tocqueville, another historian from France, who studied the American system. Neither of these men seem to share your vision that it is capitalism that will destroy us. De Tocqueville is quoted as saying that the American democracy will exist up until the point the public realizes it can vote itself largess from the public treasury. Hmm, combine that with what Tyler says about dependency and...well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are talking about. And it isn't a few greedy men gathering the most resources.

It's not to say you are wrong. You are completely entitled to your opinion. I just happen to believe your position isn't based on fact and seem diametrically opposed to the works of others who have spent their lives studying past great civilizations and what brings them down.

I say we collapse from debt. In the end, I think we have to look back to see what the future might hold. Again, nothing is new under the sun. It's all been tried before. As I said, those who choose to ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

You say we collapse from capitalism. But have no historical reference to substantiate your position.

Good enough. One of us is right, the other is wrong.

Or perhaps we are both wrong!

I've certainly got no problem with us differing about all of this. It's just a casual discussion.

To your point, I would not call the USA a civilization in the sense you are using for historic parallels. We're just a nation of a couple hundred years. I just don't see the USA as having that progression you have mentioned. I can't place years on that progression.

I suppose if you asked a Lord in the Middle Ages, "Will feudalism ever end?" He wouldn't see the end as even fathomable. We take capitalism for granted as though it compared to gravity in science. It doesn't. It's a phase of economic development, and it has so many built in weaknesses, that it has to end. No, I can't predict when. But the social relations present (actually absent!) in capitalism are very minimal and very poor. It can't hold.

The future will embrace a moral structure for the economy, just as we do for other aspects of life. That's my faith in humanity talking. Why would 320M people want to live in misery while 10,000 plutocrats live it up? The distribution of energy simply doesn't support that. Failure is assured!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks to be beaten to death, but re-read post #62 on PG #4 and I believe you've gotten to the root of the issue.  

Additionally, by creating an environment (weak dollar, lower overseas wages / material / and energy costs - NAFTA too?) in which profitability is greater for companies manufacturing outside of the US. our ability to support our own economy, as consumers, is drastically undermined which in turn perpetuates the squeeze and arguably the disappearance of the "middle class".  Manufacturing was the backbone of the US economy, and our attempts to transition into a service or technology based economy has left MANY wondering what happened & why.  I strongly believe in the free market for establishing compensation & pricing levels and thus have difficulty with the hand of government attempting to "fair" things up with wage minimums.  But, the game and its rules have been set so how can we point fingers or complain about the economic conditions it has created?  This is a classic catch 22 - loosen the rules and let the market play out naturally (& hope there is natural wealth sharing downward to those doing the work) or try to legislate it into effect (& have the businesses suffer because of it).  It seems that neither approach has worked well over the past 25 years.  I agree that not everyone can be at the top, and I find it highly troubling that the education machine continues to mass produce diluted degrees to unsuspecting college attendees.   Regardless of the level of paper attained, there simply aren't enough jobs for them to fill upon their graduation.  Education is a HUGE, government subsidized, business that offers ZERO guarantee for those buying into the idea of a higher education creating opportunity or wealth.  On the plus side, we are now consuming more global resources.  WIll this "pay off" for us later down the line when we are forced to consume our own - I sincerely doubt it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future will embrace a moral structure for the economy, just as we do for other aspects of life.

 

It already does.  It has been doing so for years.  We have regulations galore.  You can say our regulatory system has been corrupted, and you will receive no argument from me. However, the basis for things like food and product safety standards rests on the idea that we don't want unlimited capitalism, which is amoralistic in its purest form.  Instead, we want a "kinder, gentler" version.  Deceptive trade practices, anti-monopoly, etc., all moral structures for our economy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic catch 22 - loosen the rules and let the market play out naturally (& hope there is natural wealth sharing downward to those doing the work) or try to legislate it into effect (& have the businesses suffer because of it).  It seems that neither approach has worked well over the past 25 years.

 

We've only tried the latter during the past 25 years... actually, much longer than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The question lacks all the ingredients I cited for capitalism. Those were:

-Private ownership of productive capacities including natural resources and land

-Exploitation of labor - paying less than labor value

-Putting the making of profit ahead of every other human interest - e.g. amorality

-Making money form money with no work or effort behind it.

 

 

 

I don't get it.  That sounds like the waaacky college History professor I had that spat out bourgeois with disgust and pronounced proletariat with reverence (think about it).  

 

Even my pretty liberal Economics professor would have defined Capitalism similarly to Dictionary.com:

 

 

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
 
Exchange under Capitalism is voluntary.  Exploitation isn't necessarily negative, it just means the use of.  There is nothing in the normal definition of capitalism about making money without effort behind it, even Realtors work for their money.  Since Capitalism is voluntary, you don't have to work Gaul Market if they don't pay enough.  Sell your time to a higher bidder.  Nor is there a moral component to capitalism, either way, but there ARE moral, amoral and immoral Capitalists.  A free market will correct itself and that is the reason ENRON no longer exists and Worldcom went bankrupt. 
 
WE, the market, get to decide where our money goes in a Capitalist economy.  So, I don't buy Exxon products because of their behavior after the Valdez spill, not because they had one.  I refuse to see Tarantino movies because his morals don't match mine.  There are a handful of actors and actresses and other performers I won't see because I disagree with the things they do.  Because of Capitalism I can vote with my wallet and I don't have to listen to the State mandated micro-cubes.  We get so many choices because Capitalism drives and allows people to make and sell us a better mouse trap.  Just look at Mark Deneen's Juicy Music.  He certainly thought they were better.  He owned and controlled the means of production, he supplied the "capital" and used somebody's labor to produce goods at a profit (a big one, I hope).  how could that be less than good?
 
In a Capitalist economy, we need not be a victim of anyone or any corporation, there is always another seller.  I am never a victim.  But, I am required to do my own research to make sure I get my money's worth when I buy something and I would refuse to allow another or a government to protect me from making those decisions. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future will embrace a moral structure for the economy, just as we do for other aspects of life.

It already does. It has been doing so for years. We have regulations galore. You can say our regulatory system has been corrupted, and you will receive no argument from me. However, the basis for things like food and product safety standards rests on the idea that we don't want unlimited capitalism, which is amoralistic in its purest form. Instead, we want a "kinder, gentler" version. Deceptive trade practices, anti-monopoly, etc., all moral structures for our economy.

The amount of regulation we have scarcely contains the corruption. No, I can't see that the economy has any moral underpinning when we've just come through one of the greatest public robberies in history without a single prosecution. When polluters are still running wild, when the largest employer in the nation conspires to transfer and offload it's due costs of labor onto the public medicaid roles, while at the same time banking the difference in hoards.

By a morally structured economy I mean one which is democratic in nature and willingly accounts for all while striving to build the best society not simply task up the highest profits and let the rest go to the dogs. Take a good look around at the decaying foundation. It's falling apart, being blown apart, and fouled beyond repair for the purpose of adding successive billions to people who already have terms of billions. That's lunacy at work, not morality.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question lacks all the ingredients I cited for capitalism. Those were:

-Private ownership of productive capacities including natural resources and land

-Exploitation of labor - paying less than labor value

-Putting the making of profit ahead of every other human interest - e.g. amorality

-Making money form money with no work or effort behind it.

I don't get it. That sounds like the waaacky college History professor I had that spat out bourgeois with disgust and pronounced proletariat with reverence (think about it).

Even my pretty liberal Economics professor would have defined Capitalism similarly to Dictionary.com:

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Exchange under Capitalism is voluntary. Exploitation isn't necessarily negative, it just means the use of. There is nothing in the normal definition of capitalism about making money without effort behind it, even Realtors work for their money. Since Capitalism is voluntary, you don't have to work Gaul Market if they don't pay enough. Sell your time to a higher bidder. Nor is there a moral component to capitalism, either way, but there ARE moral, amoral and immoral Capitalists. A free market will correct itself and that is the reason ENRON no longer exists and Worldcom went bankrupt.

WE, the market, get to decide where our money goes in a Capitalist economy. So, I don't buy Exxon products because of their behavior after the Valdez spill, not because they had one. I refuse to see Tarantino movies because his morals don't match mine. There are a handful of actors and actresses and other performers I won't see because I disagree with the things they do. Because of Capitalism I can vote with my wallet and I don't have to listen to the State mandated micro-cubes. We get so many choices because Capitalism drives and allows people to make and sell us a better mouse trap. Just look at Mark Deneen's Juicy Music. He certainly thought they were better. He owned and controlled the means of production, he supplied the "capital" and used somebody's labor to produce goods at a profit (a big one, I hope). how could that be less than good?

In a Capitalist economy, we need not be a victim of anyone or any corporation, there is always another seller. I am never a victim. But, I am required to do my own research to make sure I get my money's worth when I buy something and I would refuse to allow another or a government to protect me from making those decisions.

It sounds like it works for you individually, and that's good for you. I know it is also working well for Bill Gates and Larry Ellison too, just to name a few.

I'm not as concerned for the free as I am for the many. Of course they won't be posting here! But we have 28 million unemployed people, and another 30 million or so making poverty wages at a time when companies are so flush with profits that can't even invest it all. We have another 35 million or so trying to survive on SS in an era when interest rates have been jiggled down to 1%, wiping out interest income on savings people expected would earn interest. We have a million or so medical bankruptcies each year, we have millions of kids going without preventative care, again due to low wages.

We have the largest corporations negotiating a new trade agreement in secret which will drive US wages even lower. The TPP will also undermine all individuals rights to legislate the safety levels they prefer for food and other goods from dicey countries with no regulation structure, like Vietnam. This capitalism created and driven trade agreement will bring even more off shoring of jobs and allow foreign companies to sue the US taxpayers for money damages out of the treasury in a court whose judges are corporate attorneys answerable to no citizens of the USA. They traded away our sovereignty over safety, environmental, and labor laws.

Yes! It works darned well for some people. That's rather the whole point of it. But, the majority is buried in debt, bad wages, expensive health care, expensive education, bad food, bad water, foul air, and bleak prospects.

Human beings expect their relations with each other to be founded on a mutually understood moral base. Without which, we wouldn't trust walking down the street. But when it comes to the economy we have been trained to accept an amoral process to control the largest force on our lives. Not because there are no moral systems, there surely are, but for no other reason than having been trained to embrace it by those who operate it.

Would you join a church with no moral foundation? A fraternal organization? Would you want to live in a moral free zone? About 75% of the nation identify themselves as Christians, and yet none can apply their Christian morality to the economy? I suppose they think that, "Love your neighbor" means just while at church. That the Sermon on the Mount has no economic meaning? (Oh, He didn't mean wages, did he?) God or Mammon, you can't worship both, only applies outside of the economy?

Your relations with the rest of your fellow citizens includes the economic relations, friends. There is no Chinese Wall separating social relations from economic relations. I Iike to watch people graciously sharing at Thanksgiving, and then all why that thoughtfulness isn't applied to the economy? "Oh! That's totally different!" I can hear everyone saying right now. No, actually it's not different. When a few have gargantuan storehouses of grain, so numerous they can't be counted, and others in the realm are scratching for a few kernels, there is a systemic problem. And you needn't look far too find what it is.

But, I'm happy it's working for you anyway!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The future will embrace a moral structure for the economy, just as we do for other aspects of life.

It already does. It has been doing so for years. We have regulations galore. You can say our regulatory system has been corrupted, and you will receive no argument from me. However, the basis for things like food and product safety standards rests on the idea that we don't want unlimited capitalism, which is amoralistic in its purest form. Instead, we want a "kinder, gentler" version. Deceptive trade practices, anti-monopoly, etc., all moral structures for our economy.

 

The amount of regulation we have scarcely contains the corruption. No, I can't see that the economy has any moral underpinning when we've just come through one of the greatest public robberies in history without a single prosecution. When polluters are still running wild, when the largest employer in the nation conspires to transfer and offload it's due costs of labor onto the public medicaid roles, while at the same time banking the difference in hoards.

By a morally structured economy I mean one which is democratic in nature and willingly accounts for all while striving to build the best society not simply task up the highest profits and let the rest go to the dogs. Take a good look around at the decaying foundation. It's falling apart, being blown apart, and fouled beyond repair for the purpose of adding successive billions to people who already have terms of billions. That's lunacy at work, not morality.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

Like I said... in bold and underlined.

 

 

By a morally structured economy I mean one which is democratic in nature and willingly accounts for all...

This is rhetorical.  Anybody here who doesn't want that?  Raise your hands.  (Crickets)

Edited by Jeff Matthews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...