Is capitalism compatible with Christianity?

[Furrowed Brow]

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.

Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force. But even Capitalist cynicism will admit that however unconscionable we may be when our own interests are affected, we can be most indignantly virtuous at the expense of others.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Luke 16:13)

Question: Is capitalism compatible with Christianity?

[DogsOnAcid]

So you think the problem of poverty will be eliminated if we move more towards Socialism? I doubt you can even articulate how a socialist society would look like, no socialist is able to. And to address the issue of poverty, Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other socio/economic system has. The research has been done, and it shows that economic freedom, ie: Capitalism, is one of the best ways to alleviate the conditions of poverty. Source

I stopped reading that article at "Both as an ideology and as a practical system, communism has utterly failed to deliver the goods."

Communism has never been attempted as a practical system, and how exactly does an ideology "fail to deliver goods"?

And I think a better question is, is it right for a physician to earn 7 times more than a janitor? Of course it is, the physician has more skills and contributes more to society than the janitor.

People don't get "paid" in Communism, and earn towards their deeds in the transitional phase (called Socialism by Marxist-Leninists). Stop thinking inside the box, because the next delivery will be a whole lot different.

No, but the problem of wealth accumulation and income inequality is fake. It's a manufactured problem that people that like you made up.

I see... Next time I find a homeless beggar on the street (there's plenty around where I live) I'll tell him "Your just in my imagination."

[Furrowed Brow]

Well yes that is how it is. And let's pay them a little more for it. So the question is: why in any society that has a permanent poor and a permanent working poor is it right that a capital owner is justified in earning say...7 times the wage of the janitor.

So you think the problem of poverty will be eliminated if we move more towards Socialism?

We always face problems and the world cannot be made perfect.....but it can be made fairer and problems can be mitigated.

I doubt you can even articulate how a socialist society would look like, no socialist is able to. And to address the issue of poverty,

It would be a world in which the standard business template learnt and took the best practices from operations like Mondragon, John Lewis, and many other successful cooperative type organisations. It would be a world built on cooperatives. In this world cooperatives would never relocate their jobs to another country. I don't think we need one single template imposed, but it would be a system in which it would be obviously immoral that anyone in an organisation could earn more than 7 times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Let's put that into context. The average Walmart employee I think earns something like $15,000 a year. That would put the wages of the owners/CEO at no more than £105,000. OK that does not sound so much for a CEO or owner.....but damn it 7x is still a huge differential and is ample motivation and the reason £105,000 may look low is because ......?

And think about it, the impulse to earn more and accrue still greater wealth is urged on by the need to escape the shoddy housing, education and healthcare that is otherwise available to the rest. In a system that allows the capitalist to withdraw the surplus value for themselves that value is then diverted away from ensuring a level of housing, education and healthcare for the worker and this perpetuates the need to try and escape....and it is for the fragile access to such things that the worker is held down in their place. Even if it is for the lack of the best quality education which means they do not learn the skills to negotiate the system as well as the capitalist.

I don't know what is the optimum way to distribute the surplus value but it seems to me the best way is to put that value straight into the wages of the worker to give them a greater chance of securing these things for themselves. I think your point boils down to saying the worker already has a chance...but given that there is so much inequality...what is unjust about given them a greater chance? The boss might have to downsize their car but the worker will have a greater chance of paying for that operation they need.

The days of 50x, 100x 500x must be brought to an end if the world is to be a better place for us all. However if we put in place some legislation to prevent this, without also moving over to a cooperative based system then the wealth will lobby and eventually get the legislation repealed so they can have larger and larger slice of the pie again. The repeal of Glass-Steagall would be a prime example of how this process works out in practice. It serves as a potent example of how accumulated wealth influences government to introduce policies that eventually dumps a problem on the poor and the worker whilst the capitalists profits continue to rise.

Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other socio/economic system has. The research has been done, and it shows that economic freedom, ie: Capitalism, is one of the best ways to alleviate the conditions of poverty. Source

Hmm...ok let's admit that point......but the point is I think that some of us sense we are edging towards a phase change when that time of history has gone. You may be in denial about this at the moment but it is gone for the US and the West. The good days for the US and Europe are over....and the capital is going to keep leaving until our wages and the cost of labour meets Asia.....and after that Africa. We are all Mexicans now. Capitalism is not going to maintain our standard of living anymore and it will not help us get back to where we were. Self interest is going to force us to consider other systems.

And I think a better question is, is it right for a physician to earn 7 times more than a janitor? Of course it is, the physician has more skills and contributes more to society than the janitor.

OK I can buy that. 7 times minimum wage seems fair for all that college and the additional skills. But there is no need for a greater differential.

No, but the problem of wealth accumulation and income inequality is fake. It's a manufactured problem that people that like you made up.

Clearly we live in different worlds and have a different consciousness of the problem.

Your cities are going bankrupt, Detroit is empty, your industry has been hollowed out and the only jobs that are being created are temporary jobs without benefits and this is all because the capital is leaving the US to find profit elsewhere....and it is not coming back. I hope the reality you are denying does not come to affect you personally. But unless you are blessed it will or least folk you know. How much crappiness will need to build up for you to be able to admit to yourself there is something intrinsically wrong with this picture....not the actors like politicians or bankers or corporate heads or this or that legislation but the system itself is in need of a reinvention?

Who cares if wealth is accumulated in a certain class group. The real question is whether individuals are able to move through wealth and income percentiles throughout their lives. The real question we should focus on is income mobility, not income inequality.

No. The real problem is that there is a permanent and perpetual bottom which does not get access to good quality education, healthcare and housing, and the middle are there always anxious they may slip back into the bottom. This system perpetuates itself and what is now clearer than it has been for a very long time is that eventually the wheels will fall off.

So even if that it was once true that the US was a land of opportunity the reality is now different and the future is a downward slope. Your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will increasingly have to negotiate a world of lessening opportunity. As the ship takes on water it may make keep on going but the number of dry cabins become fewer and fewer. That is why you should care.

[WinePusher]

So you think the problem of poverty will be eliminated if we move more towards Socialism?

We always face problems and the world cannot be made perfect.....but it can be made fairer and problems can be mitigated.

And you think that socialism will mitigate these unspecified problems. Sorry, but I have no good reason to believe your claim.

I doubt you can even articulate how a socialist society would look like, no socialist is able to. And to address the issue of poverty,

It would be a world in which the standard business template learnt and took the best practices from operations like Mondragon, John Lewis, and many other successful cooperative type organisations. It would be a world built on cooperatives. In this world cooperatives would never relocate their jobs to another country.

If worker cooperatives are as great as you make them out to be then why aren't there more of them? It's simply because worker cooperatives are impractical ways to structure a business. Business administration is itself a complex field and requires knowledge of things like marketing, information technology, financial forecasting, etc. If regular workers were to own and run a business they would have to have knowledge of all those things, in addition to the jobs they are assigned to do. What sense does it make to allow a factory worker to make decisions regarding the companies finances, investments, and advertisements? An ordinary factory worker knows nothing about those things and would probably make stupid decisions that would run the company into the ground. Worker cooperative simply are not practical.

I don't think we need one single template imposed, but it would be a system in which it would be obviously immoral that anyone in an organisation could earn more than 7 times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Let's put that into context. The average Walmart employee I think earns something like $15,000 a year. That would put the wages of the owners/CEO at no more than £105,000. OK that does not sound so much for a CEO or owner.....but damn it 7x is still a huge differential and is ample motivation and the reason £105,000 may look low is because ......?

And you seriously can't see any problems with your proposal? Limiting the amount of income an entrepreneur can earn from his/her business would obviously reduce the amount of overall businesses that exist. The only reason why entrepreneurs start up is so that they can increase their profit rates. If you want to put a cap on their profits, they will not invest as much and create new businesses. And that would obviously stifle job growth and economic growth in general.

And why does it matter how much a walmart worker make in comparison to what a walmart CEO makes? You're only interested in closing the gap and decreasing the amount of money a CEO makes, you're not interested in increasing the wages a regular worker makes. To quote Margaret Thatcher, 'you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.' This seems to be true for all leftists. They are motivated by their hatred for rich people, not their concern for poor people.

No, but the problem of wealth accumulation and income inequality is fake. It's a manufactured problem that people that like you made up.

Clearly we live in different worlds and have a different consciousness of the problem.

Your cities are going bankrupt, Detroit is empty, your industry has been hollowed out and the only jobs that are being created are temporary jobs without benefits and this is all because the capital is leaving the US to find profit elsewhere....and it is not coming back.

Nothing you wrote here supports your argument. Our cities are bankrupt because of central planning, a form of socialism. Detriot is empty because of central planning, a form of socialism. Our industries are dying because of central planning, a form of socialism. Nothing you listed has anything to do with Capitalism. They are all the failures of government intervention.

I hope the reality you are denying does not come to affect you personally. But unless you are blessed it will or least folk you know. How much crappiness will need to build up for you to be able to admit to yourself there is something intrinsically wrong with this picture....not the actors like politicians or bankers or corporate heads or this or that legislation but the system itself is in need of a reinvention?

Please, I am not 'blessed.' I have what I have because I actually worked for it. I went to college, I started out in the workforce doing crappy jobs and luckily I now have a decent standard of living. I was not raised with the mentality that my education, and my healthcare and my food should be subsidized my other people. I was not raised with the mentality that the government owed me a living. I am also not a jealous hater like many of the occupy wall street people are.

Besides, poverty has always existed so for you to suggest that poverty is a consequence of Capitalism is simply not honest. Poverty preceded Capitalism, therefore Capitalism did not cause poverty. Capitalism also did not exacerbate the problem of poverty, it alleviated and reduced it as I pointed out.

Who cares if wealth is accumulated in a certain class group. The real question is whether individuals are able to move through wealth and income percentiles throughout their lives. The real question we should focus on is income mobility, not income inequality.

No. The real problem is that there is a permanent and perpetual bottom which does not get access to good quality education, healthcare and housing, and the middle are there always anxious they may slip back into the bottom. This system perpetuates itself and what is now clearer than it has been for a very long time is that eventually the wheels will fall off.

This is a complete fallacy. Of course there will always be a permanent and perpetual bottom class of people because of the way the statistics are designed. If poverty is defined as the bottom 5% of people then of course poverty will always exist since there will always be a bottom 5%. However, the fact of the matter is that the standard of living of the bottom 5% has risen dramatically. America has made enormous progress when it comes to poverty and the poor own luxury goods like televisions, computers, etc.

So even if that it was once true that the US was a land of opportunity the reality is now different and the future is a downward slope. Your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will increasingly have to negotiate a world of lessening opportunity. As the ship takes on water it may make keep on going but the number of dry cabins become fewer and fewer. That is why you should care.

We are on a downward slope because we abandoned lassiez faire capitalism. The only way to get back on the right path is to reintroduce the free market, lassiez faire principles that made this country great.

[Furrowed Brow]

And you think that socialism will mitigate these unspecified problems.

I thought I had been reasonably specific. But here goes:

• 1/ Capitalism promotes a perpetual poor and working class who through their lack of access to good quality housing, education, and healthcare are as a class kept in their place.
  2/ Capitalism promotes a capital owning class that perpetuates itself through its access to the same things to which the working and poor classes have limited access..
  3/ the wealthy capital owning classes buy political influence in their favour and at the expense of the working classes.

Sorry, but I have no good reason to believe your claim.

Well until you accept 1, 2 and 3 are true, and then accept they are unjust you won't.

If worker cooperatives are as great as you make them out to be then why aren't there more of them? It's simply because worker cooperatives are impractical ways to structure a business. Business administration is itself a complex field and requires knowledge of things like marketing, information technology, financial forecasting, etc. If regular workers were to own and run a business they would have to have knowledge of all those things, in addition to the jobs they are assigned to do. What sense does it make to allow a factory worker to make decisions regarding the companies finances, investments, and advertisements? An ordinary factory worker knows nothing about those things and would probably make stupid decisions that would run the company into the ground. Worker cooperative simply are not practical.

Here is a short introductory film to Mondragon.
[youtube][/youtube]
They seem to have got around the problems you mention....seeing they are the seventh largest business in Spain.

And here is a link where you can find a short introductory film to the John Lewis Parternership. They too seem to have worked out how to run a £10 billion business.

And you seriously can't see any problems with your proposal? Limiting the amount of income an entrepreneur can earn from his/her business would obviously reduce the amount of overall businesses that exist. The only reason why entrepreneurs start up is so that they can increase their profit rates. If you want to put a cap on their profits, they will not invest as much and create new businesses. And that would obviously stifle job growth and economic growth in general.

Mondragon and John Lewis show why your analysis is faulty.

And why does it matter how much a walmart worker make in comparison to what a walmart CEO makes? You're only interested in closing the gap and decreasing the amount of money a CEO makes, you're not interested in increasing the wages a regular worker makes. To quote Margaret Thatcher, 'you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.'This seems to be true for all leftists. They are motivated by their hatred for rich people, not their concern for poor people.

Ad Hominem. But for argument sake lets pretend this is true. How does that makes 1, 2 and 3 false.

Nothing you wrote here supports your argument. Our cities are bankrupt because of central planning, a form of socialism. Detriot is empty because of central planning, a form of socialism. Our industries are dying because of central planning, a form of socialism. Nothing you listed has anything to do with Capitalism. They are all the failures of government intervention.

This I do know. There were once lots of Jobs in Detroit. Now there are few jobs. The jobs went and the capital went. And you are saying this is because of bad policy and has nothing to do with cheaper labour in other parts of the world?

This is a complete fallacy. Of course there will always be a permanent and perpetual bottom class of people because of the way the statistics are designed. If poverty is defined as the bottom 5% of people then of course poverty will always exist since there will always be a bottom 5%. However, the fact of the matter is that the standard of living of the bottom 5% has risen dramatically. America has made enormous progress when it comes to poverty and the poor own luxury goods like televisions, computers, etc.

Just to be boring I'll repeat. This is about access to good quality housing, education and healthcare.

We are on a downward slope because we abandoned lassiez faire capitalism. The only way to get back on the right path is to reintroduce the free market, lassiez faire principles that made this country great.

Great. Let's deregulate. [irony]Now all that capital is going to come flooding back into the US because of the cheap labour costs[/irony]. Well it will when the unit cost of the US is on a par with the Phillippines.

[Goat]

Well yes that is how it is. And let's pay them a little more for it. So the question is: why in any society that has a permanent poor and a permanent working poor is it right that a capital owner is justified in earning say...7 times the wage of the janitor.

So you think the problem of poverty will be eliminated if we move more towards Socialism?

We always face problems and the world cannot be made perfect.....but it can be made fairer and problems can be mitigated.

I doubt you can even articulate how a socialist society would look like, no socialist is able to. And to address the issue of poverty,

It would be a world in which the standard business template learnt and took the best practices from operations like Mondragon, John Lewis, and many other successful cooperative type organisations. It would be a world built on cooperatives. In this world cooperatives would never relocate their jobs to another country. I don't think we need one single template imposed, but it would be a system in which it would be obviously immoral that anyone in an organisation could earn more than 7 times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Let's put that into context. The average Walmart employee I think earns something like $15,000 a year. That would put the wages of the owners/CEO at no more than £105,000. OK that does not sound so much for a CEO or owner.....but damn it 7x is still a huge differential and is ample motivation and the reason £105,000 may look low is because ......?

And think about it, the impulse to earn more and accrue still greater wealth is urged on by the need to escape the shoddy housing, education and healthcare that is otherwise available to the rest. In a system that allows the capitalist to withdraw the surplus value for themselves that value is then diverted away from ensuring a level of housing, education and healthcare for the worker and this perpetuates the need to try and escape....and it is for the fragile access to such things that the worker is held down in their place. Even if it is for the lack of the best quality education which means they do not learn the skills to negotiate the system as well as the capitalist.

I don't know what is the optimum way to distribute the surplus value but it seems to me the best way is to put that value straight into the wages of the worker to give them a greater chance of securing these things for themselves. I think your point boils down to saying the worker already has a chance...but given that there is so much inequality...what is unjust about given them a greater chance? The boss might have to downsize their car but the worker will have a greater chance of paying for that operation they need.

The days of 50x, 100x 500x must be brought to an end if the world is to be a better place for us all. However if we put in place some legislation to prevent this, without also moving over to a cooperative based system then the wealth will lobby and eventually get the legislation repealed so they can have larger and larger slice of the pie again. The repeal of Glass-Steagall would be a prime example of how this process works out in practice. It serves as a potent example of how accumulated wealth influences government to introduce policies that eventually dumps a problem on the poor and the worker whilst the capitalists profits continue to rise.

I don't know if you have to go that strict. Let's look at the difference between Walmart and Costco, two very equivalent companies when it comes to quality and product.

The average salary of a Costco employee is 16 to 18 dollars an hour. 85% of them have health care. The CEO makes 500K a year.

Many if not most Walmart employees make minimum wage. 80% of them qualify for food stamps. The CEO makes 14.3 Million a year.

The CEO of Costco makes about 15 times the average salary of the worker (or thereabouts)

The CEO of Walmart makes 100 times the average salary of the employees... and not only that, since the employees are paid so little, the tax payer has to subsidize their living expenses with food stamps.

That does not even include the board of directors, and the money the owners suck out.

Now, which is more 'christian'?? And , which is more beneficial to society as a whole? (not to the corporate owners, but society as a whole).

You don't have to get rid of capitalism.. all you have to do is regulate it, and control the excessive greed.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 45 by Goat]
Maybe you are right. But I do like the number 7 for some irrational reason. As long as the working class get an excellent national health service and excellent education with no more than 18 in a class, and good quality affordable housing that does not need a ton of debt and that the system is built in such a way that there is a greater guarantee that these things will not be lobbied away from them by folk with wealth and power then I'd be happy and will not join the revolution.

I actually become aware of the Costco model just yesterday. I think I got that information off a Richard Wolff video. But Wolff also argues that if you regulate them the capitalist will eventually get the regulation repealed. It may take them decades and a change in political climate but they have the money and eventually they will get their way. This is a sticking point for me.

And in the meantime here is a short information video on the Co-Operative movement.
[youtube][/youtube]

[Goat]

[Replying to post 45 by Goat]
Maybe you are right. But I do like the number 7 for some irrational reason. As long as the working class get an excellent national health service and excellent education with no more than 18 in a class, and good quality affordable housing that does not need a ton of debt and that the system is built in such a way that there is a greater guarantee that these things will not be lobbied away from them by folk with wealth and power then I'd be happy and will not join the revolution.

I actually become aware of the Costco model just yesterday. I think I got that information off a Richard Wolff video. But Wolff also argues that if you regulate them the capitalist will eventually get the regulation repealed. It may take them decades and a change in political climate but they have the money and eventually they will get their way. This is a sticking point for me.

And in the meantime here is a short information video on the Co-Operative movement.
[youtube][/youtube]

I would not object to the cooperative model. It is just that , due to the economy of scale, I don't see how to get from big corporations to that without some strong incentives..and the big corps have the money right now.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 47 by Goat]
And cooperatives do not answer the problems of healthcare, education and housing without a restructuring of society on a much larger scale. That takes us back towards something far more fundamental.

[charles_hamm]

Please show any economy that can provide full employement considering that we agree there will always be the groups you listed above. It simply is not possible. I am not sure what you are calling 'slave wages'. People are not promised the best items, just the opportunity to work hard and maybe be able to buy them.

Obviously no system can provide 100% employment, but Capitalism uses unemployment to keep wages down. This makes unemployment favorable to the Capitalist class, because workers have to compete between each other over wages.

This goes both ways. When unemployement is high wages do drop, but when unemployement is low wages go up because workers can be more picky about who they work for.

There is a third choice. The system is essentially O.K. but it does have flaws like all systems do. There is a combination of lazy individuals, expectations for pay that may not be realistic, in some cases it doesn't provide the same opportunity for all, and it will have lower pay classes.

"OK" for whom exactly?

Classes are not defined by income, but by their relationship to the Means of Production. A worker earning a salary of 100.000,00$ a year is still in the same Class as one who earns 10.000,00$ a year. If we were to define class by income, then we would have near infinite Classes.

Classes are defined by income ranges. It is O.K. for those who acitvely participate in it by working.

Capitalism does allow the individual to make a choice. Work or be a part of the welfare system.

This makes it inherently undemocratic.

No this just means there are consequences for a persons choices. That is very democratic.

Welfare won't go away because government can use it to always apply control over certain groups. Also some government officials like it because as long as the people on it are happy, it gives them a solid voting base.

Welfare is a product of Class Struggle. Some capitalist ideologies support it because they believe it benefits stability, others reject it.

It started out as a safety net for those who could not take care of themselves either due to disability, old age or the like. Now it is almost a job for some people.

I've never said you won't have unemployement. That will be there in any system. As for good, quality healthcare, that is not a right, it is a privilege. We have indigent care here that basically says no person may be turned away because they can't pay for service. It doesn't give them the cream of the crop, but they do have a way to go to a hospital.

It's very sad that the fact that you have been born into a poor family means you have less right to life that a rich person.

This is not true at all. You have the same right to life. What you don't have is the right to the most expensive things in life. There are people who choose not to even have insurance because they know they can still use the hospital.

That is not true at all. When companies have capital and the economy is steady they invest that capital in projects that create jobs. No, not all of those jobs will be six figure incomes, but they will be jobs.

Jobs are created by human needs. There is plenty of work to be done. What Capitalism does is close all those opportunities, puts it in the hands of a market orientated by profit, and reopens a handful of those opportunities again. This means that even people whose labour can be of great use to society, might end up unemployed because there is no profit to be made out of their work. Such a waste of human potential.

The real problem is that workers see some jobs as beneath them. The work is there but some simply don't want to do it.

I won't try to forecast ten years out because the economy could easily go boom or bust in that time, especially when Obamacare kicks in completely and begins to require funding.

Putting the whole Obamacare thing to aside, we can both agree that Capitalism, and consequentially the Political, Social, and Economic state of affairs, are very unpredictable.

Agreed.

No, because they take the bigger risk. The finance easily could come from other assets they have. You are minimizing the risk a company takes when it starts a new business.

Workers on the other hand are in constant risk of falling into poverty even when they are employed.

That depends on the choices they make with their finances.

The loans are similar to credit cards for people with bad credit. Each person makes the choice to take one of these loans. What drives them to the loans is more poor money management skills than lack of pay.

Credit was a measure taken by Capitalism because of the problem of overproduction. All the wages of the workers are not enough to acquire all the goods they produce.

Credit is nothing more than a risk versus reward system.

The folks were mistreating the police when the police tried to work with them. We had pictures of protestors urinating on cop cars as one example.

Police are Class Traitors. Many of them aren't aware of what they are and their role in the system, and think they are ultimately doing good, just like soldiers. They exist to enforce the law, most of it being centered around the protection of Private Property.

Also it's really not logical to brush off a whole social movement over a few acts of vandalism. Let's put things into context here.

Stopping a rape is not protecting private property. Also the movement got brushed off because people started to see it for the scam it really was. The protestors were using it as an excuse to commit crimes.

[charles_hamm]

Please show any economy that can provide full employement considering that we agree there will always be the groups you listed above.

I am not able to offer or point to a perfect system. However I think we should all be interested in describing clearly and accurately what is before us without a view blurred by a false consciousness. There are always lazy people and I do not argue human nature changes much whatever the political or economic system in place. But if there is no welfare (accept disability) but the system guarantees a job such that the wage is sufficient to cover the rent of a good quality home (not a trailer), full healthcare coverage, excellent education for their kids, then those lazy people you refer to will have a real “free choice� and everyone else will not be in fear of falling between the cracks.

A good, quality home is one where there are no structural defects and it is free of any major problems. Full healthcare coverage is a choice. If you want it, then give up something else and pay for it.

Is this not a better choice than the choice they presently have which you seem to be defending.

No it is not. You have left out the fact that without profits, the companies you want to pay more have no reason to hire anybody.

But my point over and over...there are non lazy people ready to join in who will always struggle to pay the rent and the bills in the capitalist system. They are at the bottom of a well. Sure some clever and hard working and lucky folk climb out, but they are few, and it is the system that builds the well in the first place.

Sure there are and I won't disagree that there will always be a lower income class. The system may build the well, but peoples choices dig it deeper.

It simply is not possible. I am not sure what you are calling 'slave wages'.

Any wage that leaves a person only able to afford the poorest kind of accommodation that a reasonable person would not choose to live in if they could afford better; any wage that means a person cannot afford the best education for their kids; any wage that means a person cannot afford full healthcare coverage and if they become ill they are a likely chance of being bankrupted by healthcare bills; any wage that leaves a person more vulnerable than the capitalist owner.

Agree on housing. The "best" education is the education a child wants to earn. Sending a child to the best school does not give them the best education. Teaching a child the value of learning gives them the best education. Once again healthcare is not a right, it is a choice. Give up something else to pay for it. Your last statement will never work because simply put, most people will not take the risk if the reward does not outweight it.

People are not promised the best items,

The best items?. Housing, health and education are not items. And any system that inherently leaves sections of society second best and is unable to meet their needs (ok let’s just talk about the hard working sections to stop anymore deflection and talk about lazy folk) is not treating everyone equally. Such society does not operate under the Golden rule.... and to get back to the OP.....I wonder and ask the question is such a society compatible with Christianity?

Everyone has an equal chance. That is how the system treats everyone equally. Everyone will not take advantage of that chance and that is no fault of the system.

just the opportunity to work hard and maybe be able to buy them.

Working hard and maybe being able to afford decent housing, healthcare and education is exactly my point.

It is called opportunity. Some take advantage of it and some don't.

There is a third choice. The system is essentially O.K. but it does have flaws like all systems do. There is a combination of lazy individuals, expectations for pay that may not be realistic, in some cases it doesn't provide the same opportunity for all, and it will have lower pay classes.

But how is “realistic� determined. To underline the kind of argument that has been put forward by DogsOnAcid our conception of what is “realistic� is ideological and determined by the system we inhabit. The reality is that the capitalist system actively hinders us from thinking outside its box.

Realistic is determined by the market. Reality is that the market will always set saleries.

But also: are we saying it is not realistic that everyone should have decent housing, health care and education as a guarantee. If so why should anyone ever be content with the system...and why should their first and most strident complaint not be the system itself rather than the individual failings of other people.

Personal responsibility should always be the first place people look. If you don't have the house you want, the car you want, why is that?

Welfare won't go away because government can use it to always apply control over certain groups. Also some government officials like it because as long as the people on it are happy, it gives them a solid voting base.

So get rid of welfare and ensure everyone has a paid wage at sufficient level that they are guaranteed decent housing, healthcare and education. Is that not a vote winner? And I think the answer is no in the US as far as I can gather.

I would say the answer is no as well. People will not agree on what the wage should be and goivernment will not give up control.

I've never said you won't have unemployment. That will be there in any system. As for good, quality healthcare, that is not a right, it is a privilege.

I guess this is where us Europeans live on another continent to Americans. To saygood quality healthcare is a privilege actually sounds evil to my ears and engenders eyeballs rolling up into back of head. It is a privilege AND a right. I was about to accuse you of swallowing decades of propaganda but I guess you could come back and accuse me of swallowing decades of socialist propaganda. So let’s admit we are both victims of different kinds of propaganda. The question comes down to which way of looking at the world comes closest to the ethical standards of a/ the golden rule b/ Christianity. the system that says healthcare is 1/ a privilege and not a right or 2/ a privilege and a right?

That depends on how you define a 'right' here. If by right you mean a person should not be allowed to suffer or die regardless of whether they can pay their bill then I say yes it is a right.

We have indigent care here that basically says no person may be turned away because they can't pay for service. It doesn't give them the cream of the crop, but they do have a way to go to a hospital.

Why is this ever....ever..... acceptable?

Why is it not? If a doctor is forced to take care of anyone who comes in whether they can pay or not, then where is the incentive to become a doctor?

Give everyone a hard working pill and fix everyone’s problems that hinder them from working and the result will not be one large well paid middle class. There will be folk at the bottom, and your wage will be reduced because of the added competition for your job. the capitalist however will still take the profits.

That is not true at all. When companies have capital and the economy is steady they invest that capital in projects that create jobs. No, not all of those jobs will be six figure incomes, but they will be jobs.

Which bit is not true? If everyone is a hard worker making the most of their talents the available work force is maximised. Demand and supply says that this will create downward pressure on your wage. The capitalist will still take their profits, and the janitor will still bump along the bottom living in the poorest accommodation, struggling to afford healthcare and his kids are going to get a lesser education....a situation that perpetuates his kids also being janitors. Sure some escape this, but there are always janitors....so why not a system that pays them a wage that means they get the best kind of healthcare and education for their kids.

And so even in the case where the system is able to provide full employment and there is not downward pressure on your wage....the conditions of the janitor do not change.

Here is the basic problem. You are worried about the janitor without asking why the janitor remains a janitor. I am asking why he doesn't try to better himself.

No, because they take the bigger risk. The finance easily could come from other assets they have. You are minimizing the risk a company takes when it starts a new business.

And so they have assets accumulated over some previous period they put to work. But how do such assets accumulate? Is it a nice division between the frugal and sensible people, the astute people who know how to manage risk and the lazy and feckless. This seems to be where you are at. But what about the group of society that is hard working and come from a long line of hard working people yet they are still barely able to afford the healthcare and their kids still get a second class education. These folk never go away. That accumulated wealth has been amassed off the backs of these kinds of people. All those factories and offices that have made someone wealthier than the rest have been cleaned, manned and kept secure by hard working folk. So sure we can admit someone takes a risk when they invest into a business but the investment takes place within a system that makes the investment possible because one class of people is available to make the investment work, keep it safe and allows it to grow. So to say one person or group are risk takers is looking at things with one eye closed.

The folks were mistreating the police when the police tried to work with them. We had pictures of protestors urinating on cop cars as one example.

Let’s assume that the police had done nothing to urinate people off then arrest these folk give them a fine and continue to work with Occupiers. I do not doubt many of the Occupiers saw the Police as something like the enemy...if any did.....why?

The simple answer is that the police were not there to serve their (the Occupiers) interests. It is clear is that the police were there to serve the interest of the system not the grievances of the people. It is also clear that the police targeted the Occupiers as the problem and not the banks and corporations that had brought the Occupiers out on to the streets. The police have masters and the lines of power trace directly back to who owns the wealth.

If the system does not enforce itself and is not tyrannical then this would have been the conversation between police and Occupier...

• You say the CEO committed fraud that wiped out trillions of dollars....and that more and more wealth is being accumulated by the wealthy at the expense of the middle classes and poor...and this is being done by nefarious means and the basic unfairness built into the system they have enforced.....get back in your tent madam and leave it with us. We’ll have the scoundrels in cuffs by the end of the night....so there is no need to camp here long

If that had been the fundamental reaction of the police there would have been no urinating on their cars.