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?

[Furrowed Brow]

Again, you are simply demanding that "by definition" capitalism necessarily must be unethical in order to fit your definition of it.

You've already demand what it must by by definition.

I am saying I think the description I have given is accurate.

In other words, according to you any business that is run fairly and ethically cannot be "capitalism" because this violate your definition of what you claim capitalism must be.

Here is the problem with framing this as a question of ethics. Does the slave master who looks after his slaves extremely well, makes sure they are well fed and receive excellent medical attention and makes sure the children of his slaves are educated and so forth.....is such a slave master ethical? The point to this example is not to say capitalists are slave masters but to point out that you can have some very nice and otherwise fair minded people caught up in a system that is inherently unfair and whilst they are otherwise nice guys their self interest is tied to perpetuating the system.

And yes by definition capitalism is built on and perpetuates inequality.

That's seems rather circular to me.

You have given some counter examples of small businesses run by fair minded people. My counter counter example is Spedan Lewis. If your friend are as fair minded as he was then they would be running something close to a cooperative. I grant you the point that your friends ethically minded, and I guess they also worked very hard to build up their business. If they live in a nice, maybe large but relatively modest house whilst making sure all their employees have enough to live on and get full medical coverage, and have an ethical purchase policy etc., then well done to them they are on the way to not being capitalists.

I disagree. Unions don't compete with capitalists. They simple argue against their ethics. That's not competition.

Here is one very clear example how unions and owners (or rather their representatives) compete over surplus value. It is an example that is about to affect me personally. Our industry (the owners and their representatives) have decided they cannot afford to make the same level of contributions to the pension fund. They are presently in initial negotiations with the unions. This comes down to a competition over profits. The union want x amount of profits diverted to pensions, the owners want a portion of x diverted to shareholders and management bonuses reducing the amount of x that goes into the pension fund. For the employer this is a cost to be off loaded for the employee it is their standard of living and the difference between paying the rent when they are old or having to work on for another five years or so. If the employees were partners in the business this would be an argument how to best allocated profits, as we are not partners and if we lose the battle (for a battle it is going to become) then we lose benefits and our long term standard of living will be reduced. So at this point we stare darkly over the negotiating table and thump that table with our hairy hands threatening strike and industrial action.

Capitalists compete with each other. They don't compete with unions. They fight and argue with unions.

Capitalists strive to reduce their costs, unions strive to increase the cost to the capitalist. How is this not competition?

If you don't like the boss and company you work for I would recommend quitting altogether and finding a better way to make your living in this world. Why bother arguing with a boss?

I like my job and the company is ok. I quite like my bosses on a personal level. A lot of them are nice guys just trying to do the job they’ve got. But their objectives are not the best interests of the worker beyond that which they are forced to attend to through legislation and employment law, they are forced to by the unions, or it does not cost them very much. This is true wherever I might go. Because I have a union I actually have pretty good terms and conditions. I have worked for companies without unions and there is a marked difference. With a union we actually get to say no we are not doing it....whatever “it� might be.

But here is the reality. I am like a lot of folk. I have little experience of doing anything else, I am not practical, have no obvious skills I could earn a living from and I am not an entrepreneur. I could wash cars I guess.

I am totally against unions and I would never argue with an employer. I would simply quit an move on to something else. Arguing with an employer is absurd IMHO. If I have to argue with my employer I really need to ask myself why I've chosen to be their employee in the first place

Then you are in a lucky place. But not everyone is so well placed, and if the ability to up and move on was available to all then surely there would be no one earning minimum wage, and no one would be trapped into low paid work over the long term. But clearly this is not true.

BTW...why are you against unions? In the UK they have certainly raised the standard of living of their members and of the working class in general.

The fact that you hang around working for them whilst arguing with them only shows that you don't have the conviction to walk out the door unless you can get everyone else to walk out with you (i.e. form a union). I reject that approach so I'd be out the door at my first disagreement with the employer no union required.

Me argue....nah....I moan and whine a lot but I leave the union to argue with the bosses. They are trained negotiators. I hang around working for them because I have good terms and conditions relative to what I would find elsewhere.

For me that's shouldn't even be competition at all. The employee should have never taken the job in the first place if they didn't like the deal. You're supposed to agree before you take the job. Not take the job and then start crying that you don't like the arrangement

Ok you have three kids and the rent to pay, or just one kid and the rent to pay......you can’t do much better wherever you go....the job may actually be better than some others.....and you know you ain’t going to do much better.....or this is the first interview you’ve got after sixty or so applications and you are out of work. Rather than frame the problem as a matter of personal choice how about including into your formulations of the problem the systematic pressures and realities that force peoples hand, the kind of pressures that keep people in low paid work for the long term. And the point is that individuals may come and go but the low paid work is always there, and there is a permanent level of society forever in that kind of work.

I order you forthwith to sit down and watch Les Miserables....let’s see if we can get those revolutionary juices flowing

Who wants to work where the employees and management view each other as "The Enemy" in a fight between a company and a union?

Yes exactly. Let’s all work in a cooperative.

[Furrowed Brow]

They are only unfortunate if they do not have the opportunity to get capital. Some choose not to go to college and would rather live off of the government. That is not unfortunate, that is their choice.

The free choice argument wears thin on me I’m afraid. Let’s assume for a moment there are folk who choose to live off the government....why? Is it because the work they have available to them is so poorly paid. Imagine the government turns up with a cattle prod gets these lazy so and so out to work cleaning malls and pools and whatever. How much closer are they to owning capital?

I think the “free choice� argument would hold water if it were not that segments of society generation upon generation find themselves at the bottom. Sure there are examples of people who have climbed the ladder, but these are the exceptions. There is not room even in the middle let alone the top for everyone to rise up. Since 2008 this is more true than ever.

I think you have the same problem growing in the US as we do in the UK and Europe. College graduates having to except low paid work or work below their qualification because that is all that is available to them. The UK over the last couple of decades has been trying to open up the option of college to far larger numbers of the population and the working class. The result is even if the economy was doing better there would still be a permanent surplus of graduates. There would still be folk with degrees forced into low paid clerical work or given temporary contracts or just muddling along no better off.

An employer 'demands obedience' in the sense that he expects the employee to perform the duties and functions of the job the employee was hired for. The employer stops the income of the employee when the employee refuses to perform their job duties, orders if you will.

Unless constrained by law the employer sets the rules and gets to change the rules and the employee being in the weaker position usually gets no say. Every employer I've worked for the runs fast and loose regarding employment law or raises the bar to minimum unless constrained by a union. Whether the question is flexitime or maternity leave or women's pay, sick pay or whatever the issue. Anyone standing up over these kinds of issue unless they are part of the union will be shown the door very quickly if they persist. I stopped doubting this was the general rule a long time ago.

As for the rest, those are qualities of greed, not capitalism. Those happen in any system, including socialism.

Granted. Human nature does not change very much.

A free market is one where demand drives both supply and price. In a free market a person, or a group, takes a risk by investing capital into a business to attempt to make a profit by providing a good or service that is either needed or wanted. Regulations are usually put in place to restrict monopolies.

Monopolies, unfair practices, health and safety etc.

No problem with folk taking risks with their own money, but that is not justification for excluding their workers from the profits.

Protest and riots don't mean that capitalism doesn't work. The Occupy protest were clamped down on because of the number of crimes being committed by the protestors against each other. Rape and drug abuse were running rampant thoughout the camps.

Anyone else able to comment on the rape allegations?

In the UK the Occupy movement did not reach the heights it did in America and in the end it seemed to run out of puff. Funnily enough there were the same accusation in the paper about drugs abuse and criminality and filth (not rape). These were overstated and just part of the media campaign to demonise the protestors. There was some filth.

But even if we grant these accusation are accurate that does not account for the serial abuse of power by the police. I seem to remember reading the police in New York lost about just every case they brought against an occupy protestor mainly because of iphones (and such) recording totally different realities to police accounts.

[Furrowed Brow]

God bless Margaret Thatcher for doing so, someone had to stand up to these lawless thugs who were holding the UK hostage. She was supported by the majority of the British people at the time.

Correction. The coalmining communities had been close nit highly law abiding communities. Thatcher criminalised them. You go from a state of affairs where hardly anyone has a conviction to where a conviction becomes a badge of honour.

I'm a southerner and a child of Thatcher (not literally). At the time I had little sympathy for the miners because my access to understanding what was going on was through the media and I knew a couple of policemen who were loving the overtime they were getting when they were getting shipped hundred of miles north to hit someone over the head with a truncheon. This was out and out class war. And Thatcher deployed thousands of police and every resource available to ensure the capital owning class won. The stroke of political genius that took wholesale propaganda was getting the rest of us to think the miners were criminal thugs. But at the time I had an attitude to unions very much like Divine Insight has expressed in this thread. So I would be one of those "majority" and I may even have expressed myself along the line as you have.

I am older and wiser and I am ashamed of myself for being so ignorant of the reality. Truly ashamed.

"I must tell you... that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed. There are those who are using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others who do not want it.... The rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob."

M. Thatcher

Well if Mrs T is Judge Dredd an she is the law. The violence and intimidation went both ways. Though it mostly went one way. The miners lasted out about a year.

Thatcher also called Nelson Mandela a grubby little terrorist, failed to support sanctions against apartheid, and after being freed up banking and finance went on to miss sell financial products that were not worth what people put into them and provide mortgages to a whole new class of home buyers...her government then waited a few years before correcting the inflation they had stoked by then putting up interest rates to 16% thus wiping out a whole generation of new buyers who were foreclosed on, wherein capital owners swooped in and purchased cheap houses at auction by the handful....I will now stop talking about Thatcher before I start to swear and bring down a probation upon myself.

Can unions be greedy?

Of course they can. They can be too powerful also. The point is that capitalism is a competition between worker and capital owner.

[charles_hamm]

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?

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?

Hundreds of millions if not billions are spent on advertising. I fail to see why that matters. Aren't people responsible for making their own choices on what they buy? If an individual has enough disposible income to purchase a 'want' then that individual can purchase it. If not, then isn't it the fault of the consumer for buying something they cannot afford?

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.

The social decay and associated problems in the areas where capital leaves are the direct results of the choices of the individuals who live in those areas. Some developing countries do have very poor working conditions. Here in the states the conditions are for the most part good. There are some jobs that are dangerous, but those dangers are usually presented up front. Corporations play a role in setting a standard of living for individuals, but the individuals choices play just as large if not larger role.

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.

Unions in the U.S. are some of the largest and wealthiest lobbying groups. It is not just one group here, it is multiple. A good example of this is the SEIU (government employees union). They are a powerful and influental lobbying group. The unit of government, any type, always has been currency.

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.

Capitalism almost forces a company, and I say almost, to place a monetary value on every position it has. What is a competitive salary for a janitor is probably not competitive for an engineer. Their value added to the company is different. No system works when unemployement is high. Capitalism at least gives an employer a chance to rebound and begin hiring again. A fall back only works if the worker actually wants a fall back, and not just a wellfare check. Here in the U.S. we are fast becoming a welfare nation where a large number of individuals feel that the standard of life a welfare check provides is good enough to not work.

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.

I would guess that most large companies probably give between 10 and 15% of their profits to various charities. Why would a company give jobs to people if that company had no positions open for them to fill, i.e. the company had no need for more employees? I don't know what you define as a 'living wage'. I would think that would vary by where the employee was from. I would define a 'living wage' as one that provides for the basic necessities of life for an employee and their family and allows the employee to purchase some want items by saving money to do so.

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.

Here is the problem. In the U.S. the 'living wage' as you call it is set by the U.S. government (it's called minimum wage). There will always be unemployeed under any system and there will always be people who feel they are not paid enough.

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.

O.K. so the only way for this to work is to bring the CEOs salary down and bring everyone in the companies salary up until they are all equal. I don't think you relize that the employees salaries would not increase to what the CEO was making. They would increase to what the new value is. Now if you are talking about splitting 100% of the profits, the company would have no incentive to continue business so I would think that it would file bankruptcy and leave the industry.

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.

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]

All systems lead to wars. That stems from the want of money and power. All the things you listed happen under any system. Why would a socialist care if there was pollution so long as the system was working, for example?

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.

No sytem encourages an informed public. An informed public makes choice based on the information they have and that is a threat to all forms.

[charles_hamm]

They are only unfortunate if they do not have the opportunity to get capital. Some choose not to go to college and would rather live off of the government. That is not unfortunate, that is their choice.

The free choice argument wears thin on me I’m afraid. Let’s assume for a moment there are folk who choose to live off the government....why? Is it because the work they have available to them is so poorly paid. Imagine the government turns up with a cattle prod gets these lazy so and so out to work cleaning malls and pools and whatever. How much closer are they to owning capital?

It may wear thin, but here in the U.S. it is a valid position. We have individuals who simply don't want to work. They enjoy the freedom of getting a check every month while being able to stay at home and do whatever they choose to do. At least with a job they have the opportunity to get raises, promotions and actually try to earn money.

I think the “free choice� argument would hold water if it were not that segments of society generation upon generation find themselves at the bottom. Sure there are examples of people who have climbed the ladder, but these are the exceptions. There is not room even in the middle let alone the top for everyone to rise up. Since 2008 this is more true than ever.

I think you are removing the individuals choice from this and that causes problems. There is room in the middle, upper middle and lower upper class for anyone who wants to earn their way there.

I think you have the same problem growing in the US as we do in the UK and Europe. College graduates having to except low paid work or work below their qualification because that is all that is available to them. The UK over the last couple of decades has been trying to open up the option of college to far larger numbers of the population and the working class. The result is even if the economy was doing better there would still be a permanent surplus of graduates. There would still be folk with degrees forced into low paid clerical work or given temporary contracts or just muddling along no better off.

Actually our problem is that graduates fresh out of college have a tendency to think they should be paid the same as experienced workers and the market simply doesn't allow for that. There is also a surplus of questionable degrees (those that do not traditionally earn a good sum of money).

An employer 'demands obedience' in the sense that he expects the employee to perform the duties and functions of the job the employee was hired for. The employer stops the income of the employee when the employee refuses to perform their job duties, orders if you will.

Unless constrained by law the employer sets the rules and gets to change the rules and the employee being in the weaker position usually gets no say. Every employer I've worked for the runs fast and loose regarding employment law or raises the bar to minimum unless constrained by a union. Whether the question is flexitime or maternity leave or women's pay, sick pay or whatever the issue. Anyone standing up over these kinds of issue unless they are part of the union will be shown the door very quickly if they persist. I stopped doubting this was the general rule a long time ago.

That is not the way companies operate in the U.S. We do have laws that protect maternity leave, sick leave and the like. I believe that there should be laws to help ensure these things.

As for the rest, those are qualities of greed, not capitalism. Those happen in any system, including socialism.

Granted. Human nature does not change very much.

A free market is one where demand drives both supply and price. In a free market a person, or a group, takes a risk by investing capital into a business to attempt to make a profit by providing a good or service that is either needed or wanted. Regulations are usually put in place to restrict monopolies.

Monopolies, unfair practices, health and safety etc.

No problem with folk taking risks with their own money, but that is not justification for excluding their workers from the profits.

It is justification for the investor to take a larger share then the employee though.

Protest and riots don't mean that capitalism doesn't work. The Occupy protest were clamped down on because of the number of crimes being committed by the protestors against each other. Rape and drug abuse were running rampant thoughout the camps.

Anyone else able to comment on the rape allegations?

In the UK the Occupy movement did not reach the heights it did in America and in the end it seemed to run out of puff. Funnily enough there were the same accusation in the paper about drugs abuse and criminality and filth (not rape). These were overstated and just part of the media campaign to demonise the protestors. There was some filth.

But even if we grant these accusation are accurate that does not account for the serial abuse of power by the police. I seem to remember reading the police in New York lost about just every case they brought against an occupy protestor mainly because of iphones (and such) recording totally different realities to police accounts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 72367.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault ... d=14873014

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/13/ ... e-suspect/

These are just a few news articles. There are many more. I'm sure the police probably did step over the line some.

[East of Eden]

God bless Margaret Thatcher for doing so, someone had to stand up to these lawless thugs who were holding the UK hostage. She was supported by the majority of the British people at the time.

Correction. The coalmining communities had been close nit highly law abiding communities. Thatcher criminalised them. You go from a state of affairs where hardly anyone has a conviction to where a conviction becomes a badge of honour.

I'm a southerner and a child of Thatcher (not literally). At the time I had little sympathy for the miners because my access to understanding what was going on was through the media and I knew a couple of policemen who were loving the overtime they were getting when they were getting shipped hundred of miles north to hit someone over the head with a truncheon. This was out and out class war. And Thatcher deployed thousands of police and every resource available to ensure the capital owning class won. The stroke of political genius that took wholesale propaganda was getting the rest of us to think the miners were criminal thugs. But at the time I had an attitude to unions very much like Divine Insight has expressed in this thread. So I would be one of those "majority" and I may even have expressed myself along the line as you have.

I am older and wiser and I am ashamed of myself for being so ignorant of the reality. Truly ashamed.

"I must tell you... that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed. There are those who are using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others who do not want it.... The rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob."

M. Thatcher

Well if Mrs T is Judge Dredd an she is the law. The violence and intimidation went both ways. Though it mostly went one way. The miners lasted out about a year.

Thatcher also called Nelson Mandela a grubby little terrorist,

He was on a US terror watch list until 2008. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... titialskip

failed to support sanctions against apartheid,

I was against that system as much as the next guy, but the sanctions were hypocritical. Where are our sanctions against China with their human rights abuses, or Muslim nations with their gross violations? Sharia Law is gender apartheid.

and after being freed up banking and finance went on to miss sell financial products that were not worth what people put into them and provide mortgages to a whole new class of home buyers...her government then waited a few years before correcting the inflation they had stoked by then putting up interest rates to 16% thus wiping out a whole generation of new buyers who were foreclosed on, wherein capital owners swooped in and purchased cheap houses at auction by the handful....I will now stop talking about Thatcher before I start to swear and bring down a probation upon myself.

You really prefer pre-Thatcher Britain? The economy during the 1970s was so weak that Foreign Minister James Callaghan warned his fellow Labor Cabinet members in 1974 of the possibility of "a breakdown of democracy", telling them that "If I were a young man, I would emigrate."

[DogsOnAcid]

He was on a US terror watch list until 2008. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... titialskip

Anything that goes against U.S. interests is "terror".

I was against that system as much as the next guy, but the sanctions were hypocritical. Where are our sanctions against China with their human rights abuses, or Muslim nations with their gross violations? Sharia Law is gender apartheid.

Christianity itself is patriarchal.

You really prefer pre-Thatcher Britain? The economy during the 1970s was so weak that Foreign Minister James Callaghan warned his fellow Labor Cabinet members in 1974 of the possibility of "a breakdown of democracy", telling them that "If I were a young man, I would emigrate."

What democracy?

[Furrowed Brow]

It may wear thin, but here in the U.S. it is a valid position. We have individuals who simply don't want to work.

We have the same folk here too. So let’s openly admit there will always be lazy people, incompetent people, folk who always manage to mess up, folk with appalling habits and self discipline alongside folk with real problems not of their own making, and the folk with average talents. The free choice argument wears thin because it deflects from the mathematical reality that a capitalist economy cannot provide full employment, or rather it can if a large segment of society is reduced to slave wages. You blame the individuals....I can do that too....but you resist criticising the system and this thread is about the system.

So there is one way of looking at the problem 1/ the system is essentially ok but it is just populated with some lazy people 2/ the system inherently creates under classes and cannot provide well paid employment for everyone....and there will always be poor and low paid.

Clearly I take up position 2. You seem to be 1. The “free choice� argument wears thin because it simply does not look at or plain denies 2, which just flies in the face of the data and the evidence in front of us all.....and is getting worse.

They enjoy the freedom of getting a check every month while being able to stay at home and do whatever they choose to do.

Well yes...and turning that back to the question of capitalism that means the capitalist system creates an environment in which the individual does not get to do what they choose.....and the working classes and under classes have the least choice of all.....unless as you say they take advantage of the benefit system.

Let's just walk through that. Living on benefits in some small and limited way means an individual gets more choice about their life than if they work. Hmmm. It kind of sounds attractive to me. Ok at a stroke of a pen let's eradicate that welfare and take it away from them. And let's assume they get a job. But if you are right this means they now have less freedom and are less valued than waiting for their welfare check, and certainly less valued than the capitalist owner.

I think you are removing the individuals choice from this and that causes problems.

No I accept that. But the free choice argument is a deflection from the reality of the system. Put it this way: give everyone a hard working pill and you will still have unemployment and a large segment of society will still scrape along the bottom in low paid work with restricted access to good quality healthcare and education...... and they will get to see little of the surplus value created by the system as a whole. Fixing the people will not fix the system.

There is room in the middle, upper middle and lower upper class for anyone who wants to earn their way there.

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.

Actually our problem is that graduates fresh out of college have a tendency to think they should be paid the same as experienced workers and the market simply doesn't allow for that. There is also a surplus of questionable degrees (those that do not traditionally earn a good sum of money).

Cure this problem, eradicate questionable degrees, give the students an attitude adjustment, a hard working pill, come back in ten years and look at the result and the largest percentage would be muddling along with a large segment underpaid for the qualification, and many struggling to cover their healthcare etc.

It is justification for the investor to take a larger share then the employee though.

Why? Because they get access to the finance? That is the point isn’t it. There is a large segment of society that does not get that access.

In the UK there is presently a debate over pay day loans. Insane as it sounds some folk actually take loans out against their next pay packet at interest rates of around 2000%. Clearly an option for the desperate. Insisting that the capitalist gets to keep the greatest share of the profits is simply a means to perpetuate a system that locks out a whole class of people. the kind of people who may find themselves by their circumstances pushed into 2000% loans. And even if such loans were outlawed that does not address the problems that would drive folk to consider such loans.

Thank you for the links on the rapists surrounding the Occupy camps. But it strikes me that this is not an excuse to shut down camps. If there was a rape or a problem of rapists in your neighborhood you might expect the police to hand out leaflets warning of the problem, maybe hold meetings advising on personal security and so forth, put on extra patrols etc....basically work with the folk.

[Furrowed Brow]

He was on a US terror watch list until 2008. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... oc=interst...

You are kidding? He stopped being President of South Africa in 1999. If he was on a watch list that is an indictment of US security. But I guess one man’s freedom fighter and noble politician is another woman’s grubby terrorist.

I was against that system as much as the next guy, but the sanctions were hypocritical. Where are our sanctions against China with their human rights abuses, or Muslim nations with their gross violations? Sharia Law is gender apartheid.

I agree but would also have to add the US on that list for their drones strikes and for Guantanamo bay. And as some of those drones are flown by “pilots� in the UK there need to be sanctions against us too.

The point to the sanctions is that they worked and they directly lead to the fall of the apartheid regime but Thatcher was more interested in protecting UK business interests......and bottom line was that Thatcher had no heart for the people of colour or questions of discrimination. She had a very narrow prism through which she viewed the world.

You really prefer pre-Thatcher Britain? The economy during the 1970s was so weak that Foreign Minister James Callaghan warned his fellow Labor Cabinet members in 1974 of the possibility of "a breakdown of democracy", telling them that "If I were a young man, I would emigrate."

We were heading for some kind of collapse......gee....that feels familiar.

Ahh the 70s. I was a child. I remember power cuts (due to industrial action) and my grandmother lighting candles when the lights went out. I remember my grandfather retiring without a pension because his company only allowed management to join the company pension scheme. I remember sharing a single bed with my mother in a small box room because there were eight people living in our three bedroom house (that includes the box room). That went on for a couple of years until my uncle managed to get a council house (social housing) for him and his family. I remember we made really bad cars, and there were lots of strikes. I also remember that people on the whole were less worried and afraid than today. There was not the fear of foreclosure, and social housing was not so restricted.

What Thatcher did was change the political landscape and made an overtly socialist party unelectable. the leftish parties shifted to the centre left and centre. Thatcher was once asked what was her greatest legacy and her reply was "Tony Blair". She achieved this shift in the political spectrum through 1/ have the mass media and specifically the Rupert Murdoch propaganda machine back her, 2/ policies and tax cuts paid for by North Sea oil. Now these oil revenues have dried up we are sinking back to where we were.

So I say God Bless North Sea Oil.

A danger of a break down of democracy? Well we are basically back to the same question.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hundreds of millions if not billions are spent on advertising. I fail to see why that matters. Aren't people responsible for making their own choices on what they buy? If an individual has enough disposible income to purchase a 'want' then that individual can purchase it. If not, then isn't it the fault of the consumer for buying something they cannot afford?

I suggest you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. Since the 1920s there have been a host of techniques devised to influence opinion and attitude that work on our subconscious and our irrationalities. If you are aware of Bernays and his influence and are immune to them then you can say you are informed and responsible for your own actions and choices.

Take bottled water as the example. The soda companies seeing their profits flat line looked for new products and came up with a fridges to Eskimos campaign...[damn we can sell them tap water. They set about a deliberate campaign to get people to distrust tap water. They spent a lot of money and time doing this, and most people did not have a clue what was going on or how they came to distrust tap water.

The social decay and associated problems in the areas where capital leaves are the direct results of the choices of the individuals who live in those areas.

Having no jobs is not a matter of choice when the capital leaves. Not being able to upkeep bridges and roads and public services or police forces is not a problem created by the people left behind once the capital has relocated elsewhere.

Some developing countries do have very poor working conditions.

Some? The reason these countries are “developing� is because capital is arriving there because labour is cheap and it is cheap because the conditions are poor to the point you would not wish them on members of your family.

Here in the states the conditions are for the most part good. There are some jobs that are dangerous, but those dangers are usually presented up front. Corporations play a role in setting a standard of living for individuals, but the individuals choices play just as large if not larger role.

For the moment conditions are good. But capital is leaving. They can only go down now. The decline will be complete when the conditions and pay of the average Bangledesh worker meets the average America worker.....and the result is not going to be well paid and comfortable middle class in either country.

The unit of government, any type, always has been currency.

And there is a reason why this is acceptable?

Capitalism almost forces a company, and I say almost, to place a monetary value on every position it has. What is a competitive salary for a janitor is probably not competitive for an engineer. Their value added to the company is different. No system works when unemployment is high.

When unemployment is high the system approached crisis. When it is middling things muddle along. But there is always unemployed and there are always the poorly paid. (I repeat a point already made in a previous post).

Capitalism at least gives an employer a chance to rebound and begin hiring again. A fall back only works if the worker actually wants a fall back, and not just a wellfare check. Here in the U.S. we are fast becoming a welfare nation where a large number of individuals feel that the standard of life a welfare check provides is good enough to not work.

Ok welfare scroungers obviously seems a fixation for you. How about concentrating on all those folk holding down jobs who are poorly paid and can barely afford to live, cannot afford healthcare and so forth. I am saying this result is a permanent result in a capitalist system. What is your advice to these folk? Work harder? Get lucky? Take out student debt? Sell the piano?

Here is the problem. In the U.S. the 'living wage' as you call it is set by the U.S. government (it's called minimum wage). There will always be unemployeed under any system and there will always be people who feel they are not paid enough.

Okay we might all have a different set of priorities, but I’d say access to good quality affordable housing, healthcare and good quality education are the three most important issues. In the UK these are hot topics. For example our Minister of Education was educated at a private school with class size of no more than 18. We get free public education up to 40 in a class but this is still a half measure in what is still a capitalistic class system...so unless we pay for it (which average people cannot afford) we get up to 40 kids in a class and a lesser education than those who can afford better. Simple example of how economic class perpetuates inequality.

O.K. so the only way for this to work is to bring the CEOs salary down and bring everyone in the companies salary up until they are all equal. I don't think you relize that the employees salaries would not increase to what the CEO was making.

Actually I don't think they need to be equal. But if the CEO’s pay was kept to say 7 times the janitors and all profits are shared equally that seems fair.

They would increase to what the new value is. Now if you are talking about splitting 100% of the profits, the company would have no incentive to continue business so I would think that it would file bankruptcy and leave the industry.

False. I have given an example of John Lewis to Divine Insight. It is one of Britain’s large and most successful retailers and regarded as one of Britain’s most important brands. It has been in business since 1864 and an employee partnership since 1929 , and is now a “£10 billion company. It is one the few retailers that has maintained and even improved its profits during the last few years. The main reason given for this is the motivation of the work force....them being partners and the positive image of its brand...it is a trusted name. It has no other share holders and is not listed on the stock market because it is owned by a trust that represents its employees.

If there is a will and fair minded and talent people like Spedan Lewis things really can be different.