On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:36:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
> Hi John Mikes
> Here's the dilemma:
> Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries
> (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) --
> that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism,
> like it or not, is the only known way to increase a
> country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity
> to grow. Darwin would agree.
> Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe
> are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair
> or are in the process of failing.
It sounds like you are defining wealth as capitalism in the first place.
Historically, there have been other ways of increasing a country's wealth.
Conquest. Agriculture. Slavery. There are examples of redistributive
economies in Polynesia...the idea of 'the Big Man' who gains influence and
glory by throwing the biggest parties for everyone. As the poverty of many
capitalist economies today shows (aren't most sub-Saharan economies
capitalist?), it is really the history of exploitation of natural and human
resources (or being the target of exploitation thereof) which seems to
relate to the ability of the nation to increase its wealth.
What is happening now though is that capitalist countries are seeing their
capitalist elites become independent of the country. ExxonMobil makes
history with its obscenely high profits while the country debates yet more
cutbacks on basic human services. This isn't the fault of capitalism, since
it only values economic considerations, if human beings overproduce their
numbers and reduce their demand, the corporate leader is put in the
position where if they don't exploit that condition, then somebody else
will. Technology amplifies this. What globalization means is eventually we
will have a tiny group of international insiders and a disposable
population of potential employees all competing for the lowest possible
wage. Capitalism is building glass bank towers that stay empty all night
while more and more people sleep in the streets, prisons, squat in
foreclosed houses, etc.
Unrestrained social Darwinism is not the only alternative to 'trying to be
completely fair'. Parts of the Soviet Union and Cuba are doing much better
than parts of New Orleans and Detroit. It's really very simplistic to try
to draw a line from a single economic proposition and the complex reality
of the fate of a nation. What would Cuba be like without the revolution?
Maybe Monte Carlo, maybe Haiti...neither...both? It's all speculation. All
I can see is that whatever we are doing in the US, is making everything
worse - here and around the world. I see the quality of life stagnating and
dropping for most people, for lack of money that is flowing into the bank
accounts of people who have no way to tell the difference except in their
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so that everything could function."
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *Time:* 2012-09-07, 14:44:26
> *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
> I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the
> (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'.
> While the nouns (IMO)锟�re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to
> the applied system of correspondence.
> E.g.: "Fair" to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite:
> "unjust" to a 'fair' system in our discussion).
> As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the
> country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair
> and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would
> (*in all fairness* - proverbially said) ordinarily.
> Semantix, OOH!
> John M
> > wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>> It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist
>> attempt to distributing richness*. It does not include more than a
>> requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the
>> not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections,
>> financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their
>> lower share in the present unjust锟�axation-scheme.
>> And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the
>> word *"FAIRNESS"!*
>> So is it OK if I use "FAIR" and "unjust"?
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at