Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if we define that voluntary exchange among people as somehow predatory and unjust, what is the better or more "just" way of exchange? More importantly, who gets to define "justice" for everyone else?
Its not "voluntary". Most exchanges made between those who own nothing, and those who own something, are made under economic duress.
If I dont sell my labor to you, I cant buy your eggs, and I need your eggs to live. If I dont buy your eggs, you still have eggs to eat, you just dont get to profit my labor value. There is nothing other then profit motivating you to hire me, while starvation is motivating me to work for you.
The just way of exchange is to remove the non voluntary economic duress from exchange. This is accomplished through removing private ownership of capital.
Seriously, what exactly would you do to change things?
For instance, you want to limit incomes / salaries. How so?
First, we have to acknowledge that their is no such thing as "trickle down" economics!
We need to put regulations in place for our financial institutions and huge corporations that control too much $$$ in this country.
Interest rates on loans and credit cards need to be made sensible again. Money made from high interest credit is essentially money that is taken from the poor!
Careful. Half of those "red states" (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, The Carolinas, Georgia, etc. are characteristically more that 30% African American. Not making a judgement call on AAs but I'm thinking that you have a mental picture of these states that isn't based on reality.
When the "Deep South" breaks its habit of voting blood red every election, then I will change my perception. Until then, the only logical conclusion is that a state that votes conservative is in favor of conservative fiscal policies. Racial demographics have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
"Long long time"? I'd really be interested to know exactly how long. Can you lead me to the proper links so that I can see where you get your info from regarding this claim?
Just so we are clear on this,you are stating that in the USA, fewer people own land today than in the past?
No, more people own land, but thats a function of population growth. However, those pieces of land are unbelievably smaller and less productive then people in their same economic brackets had in past times.
Additionally, the number of "land owners" who are deeply mortgaged has increased dramatically as lending standards fell, and more people became comfortable with using and abusing credit.
Noone would "own" anything, but the workers would control the operation of their own factory, and would enjoy all of their own labor value.
So these workers would build this factory with materials stolen, er rather appropriated for themselves, from other people correct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
