"... On Aug 3, 1:20 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
> Ok, gruff, I'll jump in - a bit! Glad you did, Francis, a very nice restatement. You proved out an item or two I wasn't aware was in my exposition. For instance, I hadn't noticed the "sanctity of private ownership" aspect of my brief which can be expected, I suppose given my personal experience with possessions, but that sanctity is certainly strongly implied. Of course free-market capitalism is far from perfect in its pratice, but given the vicissitudes of the human condition, I'd say we're not doing too badly with it. I'm not sure I totally agree with the essence of capitalism being personal possession. I think perhaps that is a byproduct of it. I see the essence of capitalism as profits. Capital used to grow wealth. Of course, these profits or capital are held by individuals which could, I suppose, be reduced to the concept of personal possession. I agree completely with your concept of surplus value (profits) tied with the concept of minimizing the all to human larceny which seems to lie in most all hearts. This almost gives credence to the concept of original sin, doesn't it. Almost. How would you define this 'social market economy' you name? I think I can make a pretty good guess based on the term itself but I'd like to hear how you think it's constructed and how it works. I also agree with your assessment of the eighties where we took a major turn to the right and began to be suspicious of any government intervention in the social processes and I have to admit to my own complicity in proselytizing the ability of the market to be self- regulating. I still believe that to be true, but the boundaries where that self correction comes into play are clearly way beyond the limits our current economic system can bear. But I beg innocence. We are relatively newcomers to this complex and fascinating world of economics, especially on a fiat and global basis so if there is any forgiveness capital left, I think we deserve a small dollop of it. However, I don't see Vam's preferences, at least the way you restate them to be that much different than my own. I have long supported the concept of a free-market capitalist economic structure because it generates a tremendous amount of wealth which can in turn support and generously fund all manner of social benefits for the good of society as a whole and each individual within that society. A wealthy society can and should be not only willing but eager to raise even the least of its members to a higher level of existence which in turn can do no less than raise everyone. Such efforts easily encompass such humanitarian concepts of fairness, compassion, solidarity within the fundamental character of the human species and I think it is quite natural to do so. This current state of dog eat dog and to hell with they neighbor is antithetical to our basic nature, which I truly believe is compassionate, fair and bound to each other in the deepest of senses. To this end, I continually battle fear, which I believe to be the root cause of all the bad humans do. In that sense, I do think one of the major results of the '08 crash will be more compassion and concern for each other (i.e., a healthy self interest) and a general raising up of all of us. I do not, however, think the window of opportunity is closing. I am of the mind and heart that Barack Hussein Obama is the man who will lead this world to a higher level of existence -- a global peace such as our species has never seen -- throughout his life's work. For the basis of this belief I refer you to his Keynote Speech at the 2004 Convention. /e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
