Re: Re: The morality of capitalism
Hi Richard Ruquist It is immoral to you, but the stockholders love it. And so do the consumers of the company's products. In my personal ethics, what is moral enhances life. the immoral diminishes life. If anything, as observed above, the company is creating wealth and so enhancing life. What is moral to you ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 07:47:58 Subject: Re: The morality of capitalism Roger, That is exactly my point: if the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. export jobs overseas and hide their money there as well, they are immoral. Richard On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Capitalism is not a form of morality unless you consider expanding the wealth of an entire nation to be moral. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 16:23:46 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well. Richard On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: First to Bruno's response to (R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately doesn''t work, it lowers every body's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. 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 taxation-scheme. The rest of your reply is appreciable, however the 'crumbling' down may only follow a total disaster for the not-so-rich people. The said 'taxing' is not a 'trickle down' trick, it is providing the (missing) means to society to stay healthy and sane. (JM) Now to Brent's addendum: I agree - although Brent, too, has fallen into the trap of a misidentified problem-view: the equalization of wealth, a 200 year obsolete idea that cannot work for several reasons. Socialism (not to even mentioning communism) are never realized (realizable?) dreams of idealists (calling themselves materialists). Then again I would not identify 'the rich' as ...people who live comfortably solely on their investments... which may not be objectionable (ppensioners, etc.) but the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. Though they may do so, they should contribute from their share of fortune to the expenses. And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! John M On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. I'm not sure what is meant by 'taxing the rich doesn't ultimately work'? If it means it doesn't produce equality and prosperity, I'd agree. But in the U.S. the tax rate paid by the rich has been higher (even much higher) in the past and at the same time there was prosperity and economic growth. Now the rich (by which I mean people who live comfortably solely on their investments) pay a lower
Re: Re: The morality of capitalism
It is immoral to cause a recession that puts many out of work and subsequently loss of home via foreclosure. Bank of America is actually giving away some of the homes they have foreclosed. On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist It is immoral to you, but the stockholders love it. And so do the consumers of the company's products. In my personal ethics, what is moral enhances life. the immoral diminishes life. If anything, as observed above, the company is creating wealth and so enhancing life. What is moral to you ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 07:47:58 Subject: Re: The morality of capitalism Roger, That is exactly my point: if the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. export jobs overseas and hide their money there as well, they are immoral. Richard On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Capitalism is not a form of morality unless you consider expanding the wealth of an entire nation to be moral. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 16:23:46 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well. Richard On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: First to Bruno's response to (R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately doesn''t work, it lowers every body's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. 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 taxation-scheme. The rest of your reply is appreciable, however the 'crumbling' down may only follow a total disaster for the not-so-rich people. The said 'taxing' is not a 'trickle down' trick, it is providing the (missing) means to society to stay healthy and sane. (JM) Now to Brent's addendum: I agree - although Brent, too, has fallen into the trap of a misidentified problem-view: the equalization of wealth, a 200 year obsolete idea that cannot work for several reasons. Socialism (not to even mentioning communism) are never realized (realizable?) dreams of idealists (calling themselves materialists). Then again I would not identify 'the rich' as ...people who live comfortably solely on their investments... which may not be objectionable (ppensioners, etc.) but the USERS of wealth in directing the life of the country. Though they may do so, they should contribute from their share of fortune to the expenses. And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! John M On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work, it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down doesn't work. I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars. I'm not sure what is meant by 'taxing the rich doesn't ultimately work'? If it means it doesn't produce equality
