posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: ketsuko
So, what happens then, when the freedom that one person has to amass vast wealth, necessitates that someone else not be able to have enough to live
The economic model upon which US and indeed western capitalism is founded, cannot operate with one hundred percent of the people living under it,
employed and employed gainfully. Structurally speaking, there must always be a certain number of people, who do not have work, and therefore safety,
security, food, health, homes, light, warmth, or any life to live worth a god damn.
If everyone were employed at once, who could be employed at all, then inflation would skyrocket. If you also consider that on top of that structural
necessity, there will be jobs shortages aside from that, especially now, what with automation, and the jobs drain to nations with cheap labour, the
issue becomes even more clear. There is no actual way, that the economic model we are operating under, and the one most vhemently upheld by those who
are most often heard to lambast the jobless, or the poorly paid, can function when everyone has a fair slice of the pie.
So with the greatest respect to your response above, and with its contents borne well in mind, I fail to see how we can justify all the frankly
dishonourable conduct which apparently keeps us all in smoothies and iPhones, how it can possibly be legitimate in its origin or outworking when it
issues from a theory which demands that a certain percentage essentially suffer, so that others can prosper massively.