Replies

Your knee jerk missed the point. The point is:

We have to stop allowing economics to be used as a trump card. Capitalism is like math. It is amoral. It is good at producing wealth; it's bad at distributing wealth. Unless it operates within a moral framework it will produce an unjust society.

Regards

J.R.

"It is good at producing wealth; it's bad at distributing wealth"

Since when is the distribution of wealth important? Did monarchies evenly distribute wealth? Did communism evenly distribute wealth? Have dictators ensured the even distribution of wealth?

Stealing from the pockets of the productive to pay for the needs of the unproductive is pure solicialistic BS. Profit based decision making may be imperfect in a socialist based world view, but it sure supplies all of us with jobs. It also provides opportunities to those who are willing to invest, work hard, and take risks.

Who defines the moral framework referred to? Liberals? Anarchists? How about leaving the definition of the moral framework to those who earned the profit. The fabric of American history is replete with rich philanthropists, religion based charities, and neighbors helping neighbors. Evil capitalists are the poor man's best friend. The turnover in the lowest paid quartile is huge. Those that are poor and don't want to be poor are constantly moving up. Those that are poor and don't care are the minority.

I didn't miss the point, I disagree with the point. It's (economics is) not bad at distributing wealth, it's bad at distributing wealth in a way that seems fair to those who don't end up with any.

My issue is with the idea that it is fair for someone who does less than me (as determined by the consensus estimate of our contribution), to get more than me. this is just a feeble attempt at making people feel guilty about making decisions about benefitting themselves when the result manifests change for others. It's a socialist's argument about the definition of morality.

And by the way, ask any socialist what constitutes an "unjust society" and you should get a better idea of what a slippery slope you're on when you take merit out of the compensation equation. Of those high paid laborers who lose their jobs, the best will get better jobs, and be much better off because they'll also get the benefit of lower prices. The worst of them will go on to complain about the immoral fat cats, and live off public assistance.