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?

[dianaiad]

Capitalism provides goods or services where there is either a want or a need.

It can do that but the word “want� can be unpacked. How much money gets spent each year getting us to want something we don’t actually need?

You have no brain, to figure out the difference between what you want, and what you need? Do you need a baby sitter to tell you that you only 'want' something, not 'need' it?

I don't know about you, but the fiery hell I don't believe in will freeze solid before I figure anybody ELSE has the right to tell me what my 'needs' really are, and that I have no right to my 'mere wants.'

In fact, Obamacare is about to tell me, next year, that the lifesaving procedures *I* think I need (like, oh, a second autologous bone marrow transplant that is actually standard medical practice for my condition) isn't really a 'need,' but rather only a 'want,' so medicare isn't going to cover it. Nor will Obamacare allow me to keep my 'Cadillac' insurance plan that WOULD cover it. it is taxing me completely out of keeping it.

Tell me; do I need a chance at living more than two more years, or is that merely a 'want?"

Funny of me, I know, but who are you, or the government, or anybody else to tell me that I don't really NEED the standard medical treatment that everybody gets now? Why, because I'm 'too old,' and such things are too expensive?

My son owns three hang gliders. He's very good at jumping off cliffs. He only uses one, because the other two are not, in his opinion, safe enough. So who is going to tell him he doesn't NEED three hang gliders...that he should have been satisfied with one, or should sell two of them? He doesn't think they are safe enough for him...who has the right to tell him he has to sell inferior gliders to someone else?

Who has the right to tell him that he doesn't NEED the safest equipment he can afford, when he's 20,000 feet up, in a body bag hanging from a metal frame and nylon? Now I don't know about you, but I approve of his 'want' of this.

.................oh, and who has the right to tell him that he doesn't NEED a hang glider in the first place, if he has the money to buy it, the skill to pilot it, and the time to give to it?

One of my daughters has just severely sprained her ankle, coming down from a lift during rehearsal for "Oklahoma." She's playing 'Ado Annie." She's very good, actually....and she's got to open in four weeks. Now the typical treatment for such an injury is to ice it, rest it, not USE it...it will heal eventually. But she's a dancer, and she's in training for a marathon in four months. So...she is paying for a sports medicine guy, the same guy who takes care of the gymnasts and athletes at the local university. She explained to him the problem, and he is treating her differently, like the dancer and athlete she is. It's different. It's more expensive. It's a lot more intense and involved, but she's going to be dancing in four weeks and running a marathon in four months. Who has the right to tell her that she doesn't NEED special treatment for her injury, that it's only a 'want,' and she doesn't deserve mere wants?

I need a new car. Well, not a 'new' one, just a different one. There's nothing wrong with the one I have. I love it, actually. It's 14 years old, but it is solid, dependable, and gets pretty good mileage. I have maintained it well and it's never been in an accident. There's only one problem: it's a manual shift. That's not a problem NOW. In fact, I've always preferred a manual shift. However, very, very soon I won't be able to deal with a manual shift. I'll need an automatic. Without it, I'll have to have someone else drive me around. OK, is that a 'need,' or merely a 'want?" AND WHO THE HELL HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR ME?

I own a kitchenaid mixer; the high end one. It's close to a quarter century old and as good now as it was 24 years ago. It took me a little bit of thinking before I got it, way back then. My husband asked me the question, even; I could get a different mixer for considerably less money; some even with more bells and whistles, and by 'less money,' I mean...about a third the price. Did I need it, or did I only want it?

But, I bought the Kitchenaid. As it happens, my sister, who went with the less expensive option, had to replace her mixer four times...and eventually got her own Kitchenaid, spending twice what I spent for mine. She ended up spending close to $1200 on mixers, where I spent $300. It was a very good, cost effective, decision.

Now, who has the right to tell me that I didn't really need that mixer? That I only 'wanted' it, and thus had no right to get it? YOU? Some big brother government agency?

I'm sorry, but the above stories should tell you that I am scared SILLY of this idea that anybody has the right to enforce some system upon us that is 'for our own good,' and that anybody ELSE has the right to tell me that what I 'need' is only a 'want,' and I have no right to mere 'wants.'

If neither exist then the company either changes what it offers or goes out of business. That is not an evil way of doing business.

And so an awful lot of money gets spent to make sure we want the thing the company offers. Sure times changes and the product changes but when for example did people start to want bottled water?

It does seek out the cheapest methods, what would be wrong with that?

The problem is the social decay and associated problem created in the areas the capital leaves, and the poor working conditions and standards of livings of the areas into which the capital flows....to take advantage of.

there is a difference between 'capitalism' and 'greed,' as has been pointed out to you.

A capitalist who understands how the system works also understands that taking care of the employees and the community in which the company finds itself is, in the long run, a LOT better for the bottom line than exploitation. The operative concept is 'don't cut your nose off to spite your face." Henry Ford figured that one out, when he realized that he would make a great deal more money if he paid his employees enough to purchase the product they were making.

Of course capitalism has greedy and unethical people in it. However, with capitalism it's possible for a competitor to do better; by treating employees better, being better liked in the community, making better products that more people will purchase, force the greedy ones to change their habits--or to get out of business.

That's not possible in an officially socialistic/communistic society. THERE is no hope for change, or competition; just stagnation and regulation and a complete block to innovation or advancement. Is capitalism riskier? Sure. But a kid from the ghetto has a CHANCE at success in a capitalistic society. That same kid, in a socialist society, has no chance at all.

It lobbies for what is in its best interest, the same as all other groups. Unions, at least in the U.S., serve no purpose other than to get the highest ranking members rich.

But one group by definition has the wealth and is able to lobby and influence in direct proportion to its wealth. The unit of modern democracy is the dollar not the individual. [/uqote]

Yep. Or rather, the individual with the money. However, I don't notice that socialists are all that worried about the individual or individual freedom. Quite the opposite. It's not the CAPITALISTS who dictate what size sodas we can drink, what items are in vending machines, how we must landscape our front yards, what colors we can paint our houses, what groups we can join..or not join.

Now, I'm not a fan of modern unions. They have FAR too much power and money, and their priorities are screwed up beyond all fixing. I am, however, a big fan of the early ones, when the idea was organizing the workers for the good of the workers in THAT company. Now, though....

I was forced to join a union in order to work. That union used my dues to support political candidates and ideas that I fervently opposed, and had NOTHING to do with the problems of the workers in their jobs. THAT is not freedom, and that causes a great deal more harm to people than capitalism.

Companies either pay competively or good workers don't go to those companies.

But capitalism does not make sure that “competitive� remuneration allows for a living wage if the competitive wage is at the level of subsistence; as you say companies will pay competitively. And this has been what goes on in the movement of production from West to East. And your point is not true in a system that has perpetual unemployment levels where work is scarce and there is fear of losing your job...and the anxiety of what the heck are you going to do if you do. When times are good sure the fear subsides but it is always there. It is also not true where the worker has no fall back, if say they had their own land to grow their own food and on and which they did not owe a mortgage, or if there is not a robust welfare system, then the worker is at the whim of the capitalist.

This is true. However, that welfare system does not need to be a GOVERNMENT one.

Most large companies in the U.S. donate many millions to charities each year to assist the poor so I don't believe that's a fair accusation.

As a percentage of their profits how much is this charity. 90%, 80%....30%....10%...less? how about giving everyone a job and pay them a living wage ....that would be more effective at assisting the poor. But that option is not competitive.

Actually, it is. Remember Henry Ford? You might also want to look a little deeper at all those workers in all those eastern nations...whose salaries have risen consistently as time goes on.

The problem is not one of the kindness of corporations or the lack of, it is a systematic problem. The myth of capitalism that needs to be burst is not that not everyone can be rich, the real problem is that not everyone can have a living wage. The problem is that there will always be unemployed and there will always be folk paid a pittance, even if they are not in your neighbourhood or country, because only under these conditions does serious wealth accumulate to a few.

The real myth here is this weird idea that if you only took all the money away from the 'rich,' that poverty would be eliminated, and all would be 'fair.' The thing is, the 'rich' ALREADY pay the vast majority of the taxes that the IRS collects. Even if you took every penny everybody who had more than a million bucks had, it wouldn't touch the current deficit...and then what? Who would pay the taxes next year, and the next, and the next? If you take all hope away from anybody who wants to make more money, or aquire wealth so that it is impossible to do so, do you know what happens?

Look at the Soviet Union just before it crashed. REally look at it. See how their system worked...or rather, didn't. Socialism DOES NOT WORK. The ironic thing is that the historically socialist and communist nations have actually figured that out, and are going (whisper this) capitalist.

Would it also be fair for the workers to invest their money in the land, the building, the equipment and the up-keep of the company?

If they were paid as much as the CEO then yes that would be fair.

The CEO of the company didn't BEGIN by making that much money. You begin where you are. If all you can buy is one stock certificate, then you buy one. If you can only buy half an ounce of precious metal, fine...buy half an ounce. If you can't do that, then save up until you can. Join with other workers and combine money to invest. Why...waddayaknow...CAPITALISM!!!

There are not many examples of capitalism causing any harm.

Besides from resulting geopolitics that leads us into wars, and the imperialism (check out the petrodollar as an example), and industries like tobacco, and the suicides (check out Indian Farmers), the hormone and chemical in our food (check out the hormones in American Milk below), and the chemical releases and the pollution, the Ford Pinto, and the general lack of consciousness if not outright false consciousness the system encourages so that it can continue.

You REALLY need to take a look at the Soviet Union before the crash. Have you SEEN where people lived? The cars they made, the medical care they got...CHERNOBYL?

We don't have one of those, btw. Our adventure with that sort of thing turned out rather differently.

Here is an example of how capitalism works and has always worked it is not “bad Capitalism� it is just the natural end product of a system that seeks to exploit all advantages.
[youtube][/youtube]
Maybe there is nothing wrong with the hormone in the milk and the company is just out to protects its best interest.....even if that is true in the most benign way possible.....they don’t want people knowing about the debate ....capitalism does not want you coming across information that undermines it...it does not want an informed public and actively works to make sure we are not informed....unless there is profit in it.

So...what's keeping you from forming your own corporation to 'out' these guys, or provide cost effective alternatives?

[Furrowed Brow]

You have no brain, to figure out the difference between what you want, and what you need? Do you need a baby sitter to tell you that you only 'want' something, not 'need' it?

Maybe my brain is smaller than others, but all that money and propaganda (much subliminal) is designed to appeal to our irrationalities....even discourage us to think rationally. For example: if we were all fully rational beings no one would smoke, and certainly no one would feel that smoking made them more manly, or a bit more like a rugged cowboy, or sexy somehow. (I have never smoked by the way).

I don't know about you, but the fiery hell I don't believe in will freeze solid before I figure anybody ELSE has the right to tell me what my 'needs' really are, and that I have no right to my 'mere wants.'

Give the direction you take this I can easily say I agree wholeheartedly.

In fact, Obamacare is about to tell me, next year, that the lifesaving procedures *I* think I need (like, oh, a second autologous bone marrow transplant that is actually standard medical practice for my condition) isn't really a 'need,' but rather only a 'want,' so medicare isn't going to cover it. Nor will Obamacare allow me to keep my 'Cadillac' insurance plan that WOULD cover it. it is taxing me completely out of keeping it.

Then Obamacare sounds like a mess.

Tell me; do I need a chance at living more than two more years, or is that merely a 'want?"

Absolutely you do and any system that prevents, hinders or undermines anyone's chances needs to fall down and be replaced by one that does not discriminate like this.

Funny of me, I know, but who are you, or the government, or anybody else to tell me that I don't really NEED the standard medical treatment that everybody gets now? Why, because I'm 'too old,' and such things are too expensive?

We are no one, and no one should ever be put in that situation. From over this side of the pond it sounds like Obama would really love to introduce a European style system in the US but knows that is politically impossible. It does sound like Obamacare is a mess.

My son owns three hang gliders. He's very good at jumping off cliffs. He only uses one, because the other two are not, in his opinion, safe enough. So who is going to tell him he doesn't NEED three hang gliders...that he should have been satisfied with one, or should sell two of them? He doesn't think they are safe enough for him...who has the right to tell him he has to sell inferior gliders to someone else?

Not sure where you are going with that point. Why would your son's second and third hang glider materially prevent anyone getting the best quality healthcare?

Who has the right to tell him that he doesn't NEED the safest equipment he can afford, when he's 20,000 feet up, in a body bag hanging from a metal frame and nylon?

I think this proves my point we are not all rational.

Now I don't know about you, but I approve of his 'want' of this.

And so do I. As you might argue...this is his choice and I want to see him keep that choice.

.................oh, and who has the right to tell him that he doesn't NEED a hang glider in the first place, if he has the money to buy it, the skill to pilot it, and the time to give to it?

But let's say that your son has a truly wonderful life enhancing experiencing whilst up there at 20,000 feet hanging in a thin piece of nylon ( ), an experience that if we could all do it would in its way help to make life worth living. So what about all the folk who can't afford it and do not have the time because they have to work 60hrs a week and so forth? Or that the world they were brought up in undermines their confidence so that they would never believe such a things was for them

One of my daughters has just severely sprained her ankle, coming down from a lift during rehearsal for "Oklahoma." She's playing 'Ado Annie." She's very good, actually....and she's got to open in four weeks. Now the typical treatment for such an injury is to ice it, rest it, not USE it...it will heal eventually. But she's a dancer, and she's in training for a marathon in four months. So...she is paying for a sports medicine guy, the same guy who takes care of the gymnasts and athletes at the local university. She explained to him the problem, and he is treating her differently, like the dancer and athlete she is. It's different. It's more expensive. It's a lot more intense and involved, but she's going to be dancing in four weeks and running a marathon in four months. Who has the right to tell her that she doesn't NEED special treatment for her injury, that it's only a 'want,' and she doesn't deserve mere wants?

I'd say that any system that hinders someone from accessing the best possible treatment is wrong.

I need a new car. Well, not a 'new' one, just a different one. There's nothing wrong with the one I have. I love it, actually. It's 14 years old, but it is solid, dependable, and gets pretty good mileage. I have maintained it well and it's never been in an accident. There's only one problem: it's a manual shift. That's not a problem NOW. In fact, I've always preferred a manual shift. However, very, very soon I won't be able to deal with a manual shift. I'll need an automatic. Without it, I'll have to have someone else drive me around. OK, is that a 'need,' or merely a 'want?" AND WHO THE HELL HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR ME?

I think you are making my point for me Diadaiad because this is an excellent example. It is one those smaller less obvious details of life of which there are so many different examples that enhance or diminish someone's life. And I'd say that no ones life should be so diminished. And so imagine a women in the next state, with a similar life and similar problem, but she can't afford to change her car....not a chance. The car sits on the drive, maybe she sells its, and she has to wait for Wednesdays before Muriel form across the road volunteers to drive her to the supermarket. Its not the end of the world but it is less isn't it.

Here' is a slightly different example. Someone I know who is now in their forties has brain damage. This effected their ability to walk, lowered their IQ some, and affected their personality. The brain damage goes back to when they were a young man and they have been like this for just over 20 years or so. He does not work and attends day centres and the such. It also so happens that this state of affairs is all his own fault. The brain damage was due to him being high and drunk and falling out the window at a party. As you might say he made bad choices, and frankly it sounds like he was an idiot. Anyhow the UK system means along with his social housing that - for free - he gets a car converted to meet his needs. But the largess gets worse. Because he is not attentive he forgot to put oil in the car for a very long time and he blew out the engine. And they bought him another converted car. Maybe the US system would do the same for him, I hope so.

Now, who has the right to tell me that I didn't really need that mixer? That I only 'wanted' it, and thus had no right to get it? YOU? Some big brother government agency?

I'm really not sure what you are arguing against. You made a good decision. but here is the reality of folk on low income. It is one I used to know well. When on a limited budget you either go without or you buy the item that costs a third the price. That is the reality and it is the material reason why folk end up making the lesser choice over and over. It happens in many ways. Some are subtle some obvious, but the system hinders and nudges, and corals a whole class of people into a life with lesser expectation.. lesser needs because they do without, and poorer life chances.

I guess your supermarkets have the "3 for 2" offers. This is another mechanism that discriminates against the poor. When your budget is on the edge you can only afford the one and not two and so you miss out on the discount. Supermarkets have worked out that these kind of offers boost sales and their profits better than just simply reducing their prices across the board. But reducing their prices is a simpler system that would not discriminate.

I'm sorry, but the above stories should tell you that I am scared SILLY of this idea that anybody has the right to enforce some system upon us that is 'for our own good,' and that anybody ELSE has the right to tell me that what I 'need' is only a 'want,' and I have no right to mere 'wants.'

Okay...so we build a system that protects peoples rights, but the real problem here is it seems that once we get passed the obviously example we might agree on that you (and the folk of the conservative right) have a completely different sense of what is fair to say myself (the dashingly good looking folk).

[WinePusher]

Eating off the thin sugar coated topping doesn't make the whole cake just as sweet.

If you can't see the horrors of Capitalism, it's because you've never had to witness them.

I haven't seen the horrors of Capitalism because they do not exist. Plain and simple. Poverty does exist, and Capitalism has reduced it to an enormous extent, certainly more so than any other socio/economic system is capable of doing.

People don't immigrate to the U.S. because it's Capitalist. They immigrate, usually, because it offers a higher standard of living than their country of origin, which is also Capitalist.

Thanks admitting I'm right. The reason why the United States has a high standard of living is because of Capitalism. If you have a better explanation for the United States immense prosperity I would really like to hear it.

And how does any of this contradict what I said? Marxists see Capitalists only as parasites who take, the Capitalist contributes nothing positive to society from the view of the Marxist. And I already refuted this idea by showing that Capitalists contribute to the society and the economy in a multitude of ways. In Capitalists, businesses and wealth are created by Capitalists. How would businesses and wealth be created under Socialism if there was no entrepreneur willing to take a risk and invest his personal money in a new project? There isn't even a coherent understand of Socialism on your part. Karl Marx barely talked about his ideal socialist society and how it would look. You continually criticize Capitalism but fail to provide a better alternative.

Still playing the broken record. Capitalists play their part in Capitalism. They are still parasites, but they play their part nonetheless. I have no idea where you get this "Marxists see Capitalists as useless parasites". Also avoid the personal attacks, it just makes you sound angry. There is no "alternative" to Capitalism. Economical systems play their part throughout history, and at the moment it's Capitalism that has to play it's part.

Where do I get the idea that Marxists view Capitalists as parasites? Because I actually understand the Marxist position and because you have called them parasites multiple times.

And yes, there have been many various economic systems throughout history. And the reason why an economic system dies out is because a new way of economic organization is introduced and it renders the old way useless. Socialism will not replace Capitalism because it is flawed. Capitalism is not flawed while Socialism is. All your critiques of Capitalism have so far been based on conjecture. My critiques of Socialism are based on actual empirical evidence and logical argumentation.

The reason why classes exist is because inequality is inherent in humanity. To have a truly classes society all humans would have to be equal with one another, and that simply is not possible. And I suggest you read Malthus' argument regarding population growth. Malthus was responding to the very idea you advocating for. Even if we managed to achieve a classes society, as time progressed the society would deteriorate and inequality (and classes) would be reintroduced back into the system.

Define equality.

Go get a dictionary.

Malthus? Really? Let's not derail this, but just to say that Malthusian theory is wrong on so many levels and predictions.

The purpose of Malthus' theory was to refute egalitarianism. It was to show that an equal, classes society could not exist. And Malthus was right, it simply is not possible to have things like a classes society, worker cooperatives, equal incomes throughout the system, etc. Nor is it desirable.

Medical research is driven primarily by universities, not for profit businesses. Bad example on your part. The only reason why innovation occurs is because the Capitalist takes a portion of his profits and reinvests back into the market. I don't know why you are even arguing this point because Marx himself praised Capitalism for it's rapid growth and innovation. Marx would agree with what I'm saying. Marx himself also admitted how important and fundamental profits are when he tried to explain why there is a tendency for profit rates to decline. Profits are signs and indicators that direct the flow of capital and labor. If a specific market becomes more profitable then Capitalists will obviously close down jobs in unprofitable markets and create new ones in profitable markets. That is the creative destruction of Capitalism.

Not a bad example at all. I said that there was no incentive for Capitalists to invest in Medical Research unless it's profitable, you proved my point.

And I'm saying so what? If profits cannot be made on medical research then that means there is no demand for medical research. Which also means that there are no diseases that need cures, etc. If there were a lot of illnesses and diseases plaguing society than the demand for medical care would increase, which would drive up profit rates which would attract more and more Capitalists to medicine.

Of course Capitalism creates rapid growth, through exploitation, and it's playing it's part in History. There's a reason we can't just go from Feudalism to Communism.

And so if we ever do go to Socialism/Communism, you think that history will end there. There will be no flaws with that system and society will not develop a new way of organizing the economy.

Ok, I admit your analogy does make a little bit of sense. But so what? We're talking about property, physical tangible property, not power. Estate taxes completely destroy the idea of property rights.

Property is power.

How?

[WinePusher]

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.

Not true. I have refuted this many times already. The poor are not perpetual under Capitalism. To the contrary, Capitalism has liberated many poor people. There is no mechanism in Capitalism that keeps the poor at the bottom. If a poor person is born into a Capitalist society, they are able to rise out of their poverty. They can get a job at the bottom and work their way up the ladder.

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..

There is certainly a class of people that own capital. So what? All you people keep doing is listing these facts without actually explaining why they're bad. Is it impossible for a worker to become a capitalist? Do you not believe in income mobility.?

3/ the wealthy capital owning classes buy political influence in their favour and at the expense of the working classes.[/list]

This can be fixed with laws limiting the amount of money that can be used in political campaigns. This is a problem with politics, it's a problem with the political process. Not economics or capitalism.

[Furrowed Brow]

]there is a difference between 'capitalism' and 'greed,' as has been pointed out to you.

And I am saying that the capitalist system leads to the greed we have seen and is now so obvious, and that if we put rules in place to try and prevent, then the same greedy capitalists will lobby and pay for propaganda until the political climate is changed and they can get things back to how they like them. I am saying that these capitalist have the wealth to do that and their corrosive efforts never go away and eventually win out unless met with a stronger counterbalance.

A capitalist who understands how the system works also understands that taking care of the employees and the community in which the company finds itself is, in the long run, a LOT better for the bottom line than exploitation.

And one example of a capitalist who really understood what that meant was Spedan Lewis. If the focus of the capitalist is to take care of their employees then the logical end point of that is a workers partnership as Spedan Lewis brought about. Otherwise you get capitalists who really don't care and will only meet legal minimums or capitalist with a conscience that flap their hands but really do not have the courage of their convictions and follow through like Spedan Lewis did....and by the way the results continued to be a great success.

The operative concept is 'don't cut your nose off to spite your face." Henry Ford figured that one out, when he realized that he would make a great deal more money if he paid his employees enough to purchase the product they were making.

And those days are gone dianaiad. But here is an example of what I mean.

• (Henry Ford):It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning

Henry Ford was well aware how he benefitted from a system that was not in the interest of the people. He did not use his wealth and power to change that system. He made hay. And not to say Henry Ford is a bad fellah and would not have done what anyone might have done given the same choice.

But let's work through what goes with paying his employees more money. The idea of paying workers so they could buy the products they make belongs to Fordism. Under this same system the work is kept in repetitive and is low skilled work. This means they do not need such a good education. So Henry Ford obtained economic advantages that allowed him to pay his workers more by creating a system that...

• 1/ dehumanised them
  2/ created a material condition that leads folks to devalue themselves, or if they hate the conditions of their lives can only escape those conditions by joining in and taking advantage of the same rules and systems that will keep someone else down
  3/ made a good quality education unnecessary.

Do you not see how that system perpetuates itself by perpetuating inequality let alone treating people like robots....which when robots came along meant the people were not needed.

And if you scroll down on that link to Fordism you will find that Marxist theory predicts that after a period of stability such schemes become exhausted and the capitalist tears them down whilst seeking to protect their profits. You seen any of that going on anywhere lately? Ok whilst America was doing fine the wages rose and things improved for folk in the US. In fact it was a hell of a streak lasting 150 years. It is now over and has been for some time.

Of course capitalism has greedy and unethical people in it. However, with capitalism it's possible for a competitor to do better; by treating employees better, being better liked in the community, making better products that more people will purchase, force the greedy ones to change their habits--or to get out of business.

I think reality shows something else. This is not how capitalism works or could be made to work other than in limited pockets. There are examples like Costco that are more refrained, but there are better examples which are employer owned businesses. And only if business is employer owned do we get a guarantee that the worst aspects of capitalism do not arise.

That's not possible in an officially socialistic/communistic society. THERE is no hope for change, or competition; just stagnation and regulation and a complete block to innovation or advancement.

Why? I guess because you have seen and read about dictatorships and autocracies that do just this. But no you are right we do not want to go there.

Is capitalism riskier? Sure. But a kid from the ghetto has a CHANCE at success in a capitalistic society. That same kid, in a socialist society, has no chance at all.

But what are you counting as a success? Play ball with me for a second. What would success be in a world in which folk were guaranteed the best education and healthcare and never faced the fear of being evicted from their home. OK that is an abstract ideal world, but the point I am asking.....what would success look like in that society? I am not sure but it would not be what counts as success in a capitalist society.

Yep. Or rather, the individual with the money. However, I don't notice that socialists are all that worried about the individual or individual freedom. Quite the opposite. It's not the CAPITALISTS who dictate what size sodas we can drink, what items are in vending machines, ..

I think you need to unpack the this list as these items are clearly decided by the capitalist. They have the cans designed and made to suit their methods of production etc. The food in the vending machine....looked at what is there...[irony] all these nutritious foods and drinks with E numbers...mmmm...[/irony] We have been trained to accept these as rewards and treats. You have imbibed this message so deeply you actually think you are defending symbols of your freedom.

..how we must landscape our front yards, what colors we can paint our houses, what groups we can join..or not join.

Lawns seems a tad officious. And are you saying that being free to not take a job if you don't want to be a member of the union....is not a real choice. I agree....now take that feeling and apply to all the examples in which come back to the it's their choice defence. When choice is limited it is not much of a choice at all is it.

Now, I'm not a fan of modern unions. They have FAR too much power and money, and their priorities are screwed up beyond all fixing.

I think in the US 97% of people working in private industry are not in a union and something like less than 40% of public jobs is unionised. This is not a major power base, compared to say Europe. I think your unions in terms of power have been pretty much eviscerated. When was the last time a union in the US organised a protest march with say a million people or shut down the country for a day. True the unions in the UK are on the whole weak, but on the continent they are still pretty strong I'd say.

I was forced to join a union in order to work. That union used my dues to support political candidates and ideas that I fervently opposed, and had NOTHING to do with the problems of the workers in their jobs. THAT is not freedom, and that causes a great deal more harm to people than capitalism.

That was unfair.

This is true. However, that welfare system does not need to be a GOVERNMENT one.

If employers made sure everyone got a better deal....the government would not have to.

Actually, it is. Remember Henry Ford? You might also want to look a little deeper at all those workers in all those eastern nations...whose salaries have risen consistently as time goes on.

Eastern Europe was a terrible system. Let's make sure we do not copy it.

The real myth here is this weird idea that if you only took all the money away from the 'rich,' that poverty would be eliminated, and all would be 'fair.'

Well actually bottom line if that would be fairer as you know if you have ever been to a childrens' party and had to stop one kid eating all the cake. they are the bigger kid, with harder elbows, and they really want the cake....but deep down you know that ain't fair....so you tell them to stand back and let the smaller kids near the cake table.

But I am not sure what you are picturing. Billionaires being dragged from their mansions by their hair and made to live in a communal hut. I have given examples of cooperatives....some very successful businesses. let's start there. How about stating a movement that gives articulation to the idea that it is obscene for a CEO to earn say 10x the average salary of their employees. How about a change of consciousness hat says it is unacceptable to teach kids in classes with more than 15 kids, or a healthcare system that is not free at point of use is immoral.

The thing is, the 'rich' ALREADY pay the vast majority of the taxes that the IRS collects. Even if you took every penny everybody who had more than a million bucks had, it wouldn't touch the current deficit...and then what? Who would pay the taxes next year, and the next, and the next? If you take all hope away from anybody who wants to make more money, or aquire wealth so that it is impossible to do so, do you know what happens?

Hope? What do they they hope for? To be like Donald Trump? To repeat a previous question. In a world where healthcare is free etc how does that change what we hope for? I think most folk just want to live in a society that gives them some basic guarantees and if those guarantees are good for them they should be good for all.

But you are right to a point I think. Why train to be a surgeon. So yes any system needs some incentive to bring out the best in us. The question is when do the rewards no longer lead to better results.....more surgeons....I'd suggest that figure is pretty much distorted in the capitalist model. I'd say that the real figure is something like 7x maybe 10x minimum salary. And the point that seems to go missing when I mention these kinds of formalisations is that minimum salary should already be sufficient to cover excellent education, healthcare and good quality housing from which the individual ahs zero fear of being evicted.

Put it this way I could have Lehman bother for $120,000 per year and Lehman brother would still be in business today.

Will finish off later/tomorrow.

[WinePusher]

But let's work through what goes with paying his employees more money. The idea of paying workers so they could buy the products they make belongs to Fordism. Under this same system the work is kept in repetitive and is low skilled work. This means they do not need such a good education. So Henry Ford obtained economic advantages that allowed him to pay his workers more by creating a system that...

• 1/ dehumanised them
  2/ created a material condition that leads folks to devalue themselves, or if they hate the conditions of their lives can only escape those conditions by joining in and taking advantage of the same rules and systems that will keep someone else down
  3/ made a good quality education unnecessary.

Do you not see how that system perpetuates itself by perpetuating inequality let alone treating people like robots....which when robots came along meant the people were not needed.

This is all nonsense.

1) If Henry Ford's jobs were as bad as you make them out to be, then nobody would work for him. That is the beauty of freedom. In order to attract employees to a business, the business owner would have to provide suitable working conditions and wages that correspond to the employees preference.

2) Labor and work is not meant to be fulfilling. Labor is not an ends, labor is a means to an end. People work because the work they do allows them to pursue other objectives in life that are often leisure oriented. Work isn't supposed to be 'fun' and 'fulfilling.'

3) While it is true that Capitalism does have many repetitive, mindless, unfulfilling jobs Capitalism also has many fulfilling and meaningful jobs. The labor force isn't only comprised of factory workers and fast food workers. On the other hand, the labor force is comprised of many jobs that do give meaning to a lot of people's lives, such as teachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc. The individuals that work in crappy jobs such as a factory or fast food restaurant are generally young people who are trying to finance their way through college in order to get a better, more fulfilling job. So to the contrary, Henry Ford actually liberated labor by giving them unskilled jobs because it allowed them to get a quality education that they otherwise would not have gotten.

Sorry, I've yet to come across a single argument against Capitalism that isn't riddled with fallacies and falsehoods.

[Furrowed Brow]

A good, quality home is one where there are no structural defects and it is free of any major problems.

Well that is an absolute minimum. I was thinking of a separate quiet room with a table where the kids could do their homework, or bedrooms big enough for this. I was also thinking of a dining where the family could sit down together for a meal and a house where everyone gets their own bedroom. Excellent local amenities including that school that provides an excellent education. Not one where the kids have to be bussed for over an hour. Basically all the other little details that could be added to this list that just enhance quality of life, including not having the fear that if you are made unemployed or are sick you might find yourself on the edge of eviction.

Full healthcare coverage is a choice

You repeat a point made by several other Americans on these forums. I think it is only ever American who take this stance, so I gauge this attitude is just part of American culture. This is really interesting because clearly there is a cultural divide here and to be truthful I find the notion healthcare is a choice or a privilege immoral. On a scale it is only a couple of steps above charging folk for the air they air breath and saying It is their choice....if they want it they should pay for it. Of course if they don’t get the air they will die. But then if they don’t get full healthcare coverage they will likely die sooner, and the end of their life more miserable. But if you don’t get it you don’t get it and you seem not to be alone I really do not know what could ever be said to persuade you otherwise.

So I wonder. As a representative of this kind of conservative ideology you must hear from time to time folk like me get all sniffy.....do you have an insight into why we do....or are you forced into the conclusion is it some flaw in our thinking or attitude?

If you want it, then give up something else and pay for it.

What? Paying the rent? The college fund for the kids?

]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.

Erm...most of Europe operates on free healthcare. We still have companies making profits and carrying on the same. But yes I think the pendulum can be swung still further to favour the workers. You are likely right the companies that do not like additional costs will eventually relocate to Asia or wherever.....if they are able to do so. But we don’t have to get there in one swift leap.

This is what I think is likely to happen over the next ten to twenty years anyway. As American and European wages reduce and unemployment remains permanently high and the message sinks in that this is now a permanent state of affairs we are going to see a new conversation arise much like the one we are having, and out of this will come new initiatives and attempts to create business on different models. These will be various cooperatives and workers trusts and community project and so forth. The driving force behind this will be workers trying to secure greater profits for them and their communities. This movement will first build up slowly and then suddenly mushroom with more and more examples of how this provides a better standard of living to workers than the alternative offered by capitalism. Along with this different way of working will come a different consciousness and more and more folk are going to recognize that the idea that “free healthcare is a choice� and all the associates modes of thought that go with that sentiment are pretty darn anti social, and anti their new way of living and working.

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

So what kinds of factors influence their choices. Their education? The education their parents had? Observing how society valued their parent? Actually having a full array of choices. Folk have an something like close to an equal choice when the playing field is level.
......
Snip
........

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.

OK think we are getting somewhere. But what about long term chronic illness. Who pays for that?

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

ERm....because they want to put something back into the community and they love helping people and they think healing people is the greatest thing a person can do and it is a calling......sorry did you actually write that last sentence....I believe you did.

But if we put aside how capitalism turns one of the noblest professions into a profit centre you might also have noticed we have such systems across Europe. You go to the doctor or hospital.....and they don’t charge.....and European healthcare still on average costs per capita something like half that of the US. Folk still want to be doctors, and being a fully qualified doctor is still a high paid job.

Here is the basic problem. You are worried about the janitor without asking why the janitor remains a janitor.

I am really trying to secure the position of janitor a better wage.......whoever happens to be in that job. There will always be the job whoever fills it, and so why not pay the job a living wage that allows the person who does the job a quality of life along the lines I have already described.

I am asking why he doesn't try to better himself.

Part of me does not want to answer this question because I do not want to play the game of pushing that back to a question of personal choice. This is a problem about fixing the system not fixing individuals.... if they need fixing at all. But I will pick up the ball this time.

There may be hundreds of reasons of why the janitor doesn’t try to better himself or he does try but finds life knocks him back. In no particular order here are just a few: he likes the job, he is good at the job and well suited to it and it makes him happy, he had a crappy education left him with low self esteem, he has learning difficulties, he is bringing up kids on his own and the job is the nearest to his home and means he does not have to get a one hour bus ride across town, he is from a long line of janitors and low grade workers and has little idea what else he could do, this last job was a garbage man and this is the best job he has ever had, he was long term unemployed and frankly he is now just relieved to be in work, he is not confident in interviews and this holds him back from applying for other jobs, he really has no other skills but he cannot afford to train to do something else , he has applied for other jobs but because he is a janitor they do not think he has the experience, he is a nice enough fellah but is also a bit creepy and though he does not mean to he comes across badly in interviews, he has a prison record, he has a drug conviction, he failed all his exams at school, he has a tattoo on his forehead he had done when he was 16, he has a rare skin condition that is harmless to other people but looks really awful, he is just average with average talents and he might earn a bit more in another job but the result would be marginal, he is OCD, he meant to try and get on in life but made the kind of decisions that lead to someone being a janitor, he is mildly autistic, he has a personality disorder, he has a history of mental illness and cannot take stressful jobs, he is one of life’s drifters, he is a pot head, he is not a responsible person, he has anger issues, he has authority issues.....

For all these potential reasons and more if this fellah is able to present himself at work on time 5 days a week, 40hrs a week, why is it moral that given the material conditions of his life he lives in fear of eviction if he through unemployment or illness he fails to pay the rent, cannot get full healthcare coverage, and his kids get a second class education.

Have to go to bed shortly and I will likely get back to the remainder of your posts tomorrow.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 57 by Furrowed Brow]



You made the following point several times in your post...'free healthcare."

It ain't free, bud. Someone has to pay for it, and the someone who pays for it decides what services are provided.

YOU may not pay for it, or at least, not in a way you recognize, but your taxes are high, your care is rationed, and you do not get to choose much about the health care you do get.

Personally, I'm a post menopausal woman who really does not need insurance coverage for prenatal or pediatric care. However, I get to pay for it anyway.

My children are young and healthy. THEY would prefer to get insurance that provides for catastrophic illness and injury, but would prefer not to pay more in premiums for stuff they don't need than if they were having to pay for the entire visit out of pocket.

THAT is the choice we are talking about here.

Nobody in the USA is turned away and refused health care if they require it. The problem is paying for it; who does so, and WHO gets to decide what care is appropriate.

Now me, I am a member of a group that has a fairly rare condition; I hear the stories from all over the world in our support groups: what nations OK 'novel' therapies that will work, how long one must wait for life saving procedures in those nations that have 'free' health care...

Do you have any idea how long you have to wait for a bone marrow transplant in the UK?

Shoot, way back when, when I first needed a knee replacement, I had three friends from Canada who were put on the waiting list. Now I belonged to Kaiser, an 'HMO,' which works pretty close to the way some European health care systems work. I had to wait for nearly a year for a surgery date. That has improved; my second knee replacement was scheduled less than six weeks from the decision to have it done, and then only because the Christmas holidays interfered.

HOWEVER, the Canadian women had to wait for THREE YEARS for one of 'em, another had to wait for five, and as far as I know the third might still be waiting, ten years later. Do you have any idea how much mobility you lose when you have to wait that long for something like this?

In an area with 'free' health care.

Now I would love to see health care be a right, not a privilege. I like the idea. The problem is, the way it's done most everywhere I've seen it is that it's not the patient's right to get healthcare; it's the government's right to distribute it to whomever they deem worthy.

I'll never forget, nearly forty years ago now, when a young missionary I worked with had a deviated septum that so interfered with his life that he could not sleep unless he was sitting up, and his companion had to watch him to be certain he kept breathing. The health service figured that a deviated septum was elective surgery...and he was put on a waiting list that kept getting longer. Finally the church took him to a private physician and paid for it.

But at least the UK has that option; you CAN go to a private physician.

Here in the USA, Obama care is fixing it so that there is no such animal; or rather, it may look like there are, but the standard of care will no longer be determined by that physician and the patient. It will be dictated, to all, by committees in the IRS.

Wonderful.

[Goat]

A good, quality home is one where there are no structural defects and it is free of any major problems.

Well that is an absolute minimum. I was thinking of a separate quiet room with a table where the kids could do their homework, or bedrooms big enough for this. I was also thinking of a dining where the family could sit down together for a meal and a house where everyone gets their own bedroom. Excellent local amenities including that school that provides an excellent education. Not one where the kids have to be bussed for over an hour. Basically all the other little details that could be added to this list that just enhance quality of life, including not having the fear that if you are made unemployed or are sick you might find yourself on the edge of eviction.

Full healthcare coverage is a choice

You repeat a point made by several other Americans on these forums. I think it is only ever American who take this stance, so I gauge this attitude is just part of American culture. This is really interesting because clearly there is a cultural divide here and to be truthful I find the notion healthcare is a choice or a privilege immoral. On a scale it is only a couple of steps above charging folk for the air they air breath and saying It is their choice....if they want it they should pay for it. Of course if they don’t get the air they will die. But then if they don’t get full healthcare coverage they will likely die sooner, and the end of their life more miserable. But if you don’t get it you don’t get it and you seem not to be alone I really do not know what could ever be said to persuade you otherwise.

So I wonder. As a representative of this kind of conservative ideology you must hear from time to time folk like me get all sniffy.....do you have an insight into why we do....or are you forced into the conclusion is it some flaw in our thinking or attitude?

If you want it, then give up something else and pay for it.

What? Paying the rent? The college fund for the kids?

]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.

Erm...most of Europe operates on free healthcare. We still have companies making profits and carrying on the same. But yes I think the pendulum can be swung still further to favour the workers. You are likely right the companies that do not like additional costs will eventually relocate to Asia or wherever.....if they are able to do so. But we don’t have to get there in one swift leap.

This is what I think is likely to happen over the next ten to twenty years anyway. As American and European wages reduce and unemployment remains permanently high and the message sinks in that this is now a permanent state of affairs we are going to see a new conversation arise much like the one we are having, and out of this will come new initiatives and attempts to create business on different models. These will be various cooperatives and workers trusts and community project and so forth. The driving force behind this will be workers trying to secure greater profits for them and their communities. This movement will first build up slowly and then suddenly mushroom with more and more examples of how this provides a better standard of living to workers than the alternative offered by capitalism. Along with this different way of working will come a different consciousness and more and more folk are going to recognize that the idea that “free healthcare is a choice� and all the associates modes of thought that go with that sentiment are pretty darn anti social, and anti their new way of living and working.

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

So what kinds of factors influence their choices. Their education? The education their parents had? Observing how society valued their parent? Actually having a full array of choices. Folk have an something like close to an equal choice when the playing field is level.
......
Snip
........

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.

OK think we are getting somewhere. But what about long term chronic illness. Who pays for that?

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

ERm....because they want to put something back into the community and they love helping people and they think healing people is the greatest thing a person can do and it is a calling......sorry did you actually write that last sentence....I believe you did.

But if we put aside how capitalism turns one of the noblest professions into a profit centre you might also have noticed we have such systems across Europe. You go to the doctor or hospital.....and they don’t charge.....and European healthcare still on average costs per capita something like half that of the US. Folk still want to be doctors, and being a fully qualified doctor is still a high paid job.

Here is the basic problem. You are worried about the janitor without asking why the janitor remains a janitor.

I am really trying to secure the position of janitor a better wage.......whoever happens to be in that job. There will always be the job whoever fills it, and so why not pay the job a living wage that allows the person who does the job a quality of life along the lines I have already described.

I am asking why he doesn't try to better himself.

Part of me does not want to answer this question because I do not want to play the game of pushing that back to a question of personal choice. This is a problem about fixing the system not fixing individuals.... if they need fixing at all. But I will pick up the ball this time.

There may be hundreds of reasons of why the janitor doesn’t try to better himself or he does try but finds life knocks him back. In no particular order here are just a few: he likes the job, he is good at the job and well suited to it and it makes him happy, he had a crappy education left him with low self esteem, he has learning difficulties, he is bringing up kids on his own and the job is the nearest to his home and means he does not have to get a one hour bus ride across town, he is from a long line of janitors and low grade workers and has little idea what else he could do, this last job was a garbage man and this is the best job he has ever had, he was long term unemployed and frankly he is now just relieved to be in work, he is not confident in interviews and this holds him back from applying for other jobs, he really has no other skills but he cannot afford to train to do something else , he has applied for other jobs but because he is a janitor they do not think he has the experience, he is a nice enough fellah but is also a bit creepy and though he does not mean to he comes across badly in interviews, he has a prison record, he has a drug conviction, he failed all his exams at school, he has a tattoo on his forehead he had done when he was 16, he has a rare skin condition that is harmless to other people but looks really awful, he is just average with average talents and he might earn a bit more in another job but the result would be marginal, he is OCD, he meant to try and get on in life but made the kind of decisions that lead to someone being a janitor, he is mildly autistic, he has a personality disorder, he has a history of mental illness and cannot take stressful jobs, he is one of life’s drifters, he is a pot head, he is not a responsible person, he has anger issues, he has authority issues.....

For all these potential reasons and more if this fellah is able to present himself at work on time 5 days a week, 40hrs a week, why is it moral that given the material conditions of his life he lives in fear of eviction if he through unemployment or illness he fails to pay the rent, cannot get full healthcare coverage, and his kids get a second class education.

Have to go to bed shortly and I will likely get back to the remainder of your posts tomorrow.

I will also note that many of the people who say 'let them buy it' are in good paying jobs, that health care is included. There are plenty of jobs out there that don't give healthcare, AND, don't pay enough so that healthcare can be bought.

So, it's like 'if you want health care, you can buy it,.. oh, we don't pay you enough for afford the rates the health insurance companies are selling things at.. so you are Out of Luck.

One thing I noticed about some people.. they complain about 'obamacare', because of something their health insurance company does.. rejecting a treatment or something like that. Well. a lot of that has NOTHING to do with 'obama care'... except for the fact is shows that the affordable health care act did not go far enough.

The republicans complained about the government is going to be in peoples health care decisions, yet, recently, the ohio state has it so that any abortion of someone on medicade or medicare , even in case of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life has to be personally approved by the governor to have it paid for.

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

Not true. I have refuted this many times already. The poor are not perpetual under Capitalism. To the contrary, Capitalism has liberated many poor people. There is no mechanism in Capitalism that keeps the poor at the bottom. If a poor person is born into a Capitalist society, they are able to rise out of their poverty. They can get a job at the bottom and work their way up the ladder.

In essence what am I missing. It seems to me you are saying that capitalism can raise the wages and standard of living of the working classes, and can raise them out of absolute poverty, and that for some it is possible to rise higher. Is this some additional and essential facet to your point I am missing because if that about sums up your position you have not refuted the point or even managed to engage with it.

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..

There is certainly a class of people that own capital. So what? All you people keep doing is listing these facts without actually explaining why they're bad. Is it impossible for a worker to become a capitalist? Do you not believe in income mobility.?

"You people"...hmmmm. One simple indicative turn of phrase succinctly sums up where you are lost.

But yes I think there needs to be some incentive to take on responsibility and arduous study, and encourage folk with certain natural abilities to step forward and use them. I just happen to think that the span of that mobility is a lot narrower than you think it should be. I have put out the figure 7 x minimum wage. I might be persuaded it could be 10x or 15x, but that is about it. Basically I feel it is immoral when the differential gets so great that those on the lowest end of the spectrum become "you people", and that the wealthy can remove themselves from the concerns of the many.

3/ the wealthy capital owning classes buy political influence in their favour and at the expense of the working classes.[/list]
This can be fixed with laws limiting the amount of money that can be used in political campaigns. This is a problem with politics, it's a problem with the political process. Not economics or capitalism.

It can be fixed if they don't have the wealth to do that. Otherwise through loopholes and frankly illegality and back room deals their power remains. This is the alleged strategy of a well known investment bank. They look at the cream of the crop coming through Harvard and the other top universities. they open a trading account for the selected individual. This person invests a small amount of money. The bank trades through the day and only has to put names to trades at the end of the day. They make sure their selected person always ends up on a winning day by putting their names on the trades that did well that day. Losing trades get posted to a big corporation who will not notice the loss because it is still small fry. This way the bank who does the work of God (hint if you follow these things) over the next months and years coverts what might be a few thousand dollars into hundreds of thousands. The individual concerned goes into politics....and may end up saying stuff like "we came we saw he d...." and never has the bank donated them a penny. Ok that is just one tactic. There is no rule or law these folk will not figure out how to get around. So on this point I think the idea the hegemony of power and wealth can be legislated is naïve.