president says that inequality is a "immoral" - WHile I agree with him, he should be careful - Establishing Financial equality is establishing a socialistic ideal - removing capitalism which is the strength of our "freedom" - dont get me wrong, I would like to know I can make a living and take care of my wife - but I dont think my fair living should be at the expense of someone else being treated unfairly.
“This growing inequality isn’t just morally wrong; it’s bad economics.”
The first paragraph is a post from a source which I respect. I thought it was interesting and it gave me pause in contemplating the economic system of the United States. The second paragraph is the quote referenced. It was from a speech given by President Obama on July 24, 2013.
Is inequality immoral? Can equality even be achieved? Is there actually a desire of the populace to be treated equally? Personally, in my dealings with the masses I have found that equality is generally perceived as a grand concept for everyone else but the individual desires preferential treatment.
Capitalism does not provide for equality. I consider capitalism to be amoral. It is an economic construct designed to allow those who are willing to profit from others labors to do so. It allows the concentration of wealth in a minority of participants. With that wealth comes the ability to influence circumstances and events in such a way as to retain possession and increase that wealth.
Capitalism has been sold to us as a system of reward based upon merit and ability. Pish-posh, in 2012 the average compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO was 10.5-12 million dollars, depending on the report you prefer. This is 379-380 times the average compensation for an employee. The average salary across the U.S. for a teacher was 44,000 dollars. So, the average CEO compensation was only 238.6-272.7 times the average teacher compensation.
I could have used many vocations for example but I chose teacher because I had to choose something. You can look up the data for garbage man, policeman, truck driver, nurse, janitor, etc. These are all people with whom I have regular dealings. I did not cross paths with any CEO's last year. The point is, those people who perform the most service for me and mine are the least compensated.
Inequity, on the other hand, I do consider to be immoral. In any week there are 168 hours. You have no more nor any less time regardless of your employment or lack thereof. I find it unconscionable to entertain the thought that the time which each of us lives could be considered any more or less valuable than any others.
Of course, it is not possible to reflect the ROI of quality of life in the annual report for the stockholders, so why worry about it? The consequences of those suffering from the inequitable distribution of resources need not be endured nor even acknowledged by those in control of the vast majority of our wealth. And make no mistake about it, it is OUR wealth. The myth of the self made man is just that, a myth. No one achieves anything without the contributions of others. However, it is evident those contributions need not be recognized nor compensated.
I strive to live a faith based life rather than a profit driven one. My role model in that vein was most assuredly not a capitalist. Therefore, rather than resigning myself to a system which, at best, marginalizes and disenfranchises the least among us I will continue to seek a better system. That system may call for a redistribution of wealth, but that is a topic of another discussion.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou are really a thinking man and I like how your brain works. I don't know what a better system would consist of. I do know that the power and extreme wealth of the few in this country rests with a small cluster of the highest Government officials in some other countries. They keep their wealth and power by brute force, having an army at their disposal. They control all the natural resources and all the media. I am having in mind a dictatorship, and I think this---the dictatorship---creates the disperity in wealth, rather than which economic system is in place. But there are pluses and minuses. In this dictatorship, a citizen does not have to pay income tax. Or sales tax. Or any tax. Imagine what that would do for the average U.S. family, in and of itself!
I agree the economic system is not particularly relevant. I think they are all false constructs that ultimately exist to concentrate the vast majority or wealth in the hands of the few, be that few either government functionaries or barons of industry. I do endorse the democratic process. However, I think that process is perverted by the ability to purchase access, influence, and the electoral college. Theoretically I have no problem with a benevolent dictator although I would prefer a Monarchy. Also, thank you for the very generous compliment, I admire your brain, as well.
Delete