Via the 'book feed come thoughts I feel worth mulling:
"Out of curiosity, how many of you value money more than you value life itself? Seems pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet our entire economic model is built to reward behavior that puts profit before human life & resources..."
I doubt many here would choose money over life in a literal sense. Perhaps our daily decisions and actions show us prioritizing money or material goods over our health and well-being (mental and/or physical), however.
"It is time to choose something different. The "God of Economics" which we started worshiping with Adam Smith's declaration that the "Marketplace" is led by an "Invisible hand," is the most bloodthirsty of all man-made myths! Today 16,000 children will die of starvation because, though we have plenty of food to feed them, they cannot afford to play the game to which we made up the rules!"
I don't think it's just children who are getting the raw end of "free" market economic theory anymore (arguably the rawest, yes, but not the only casualty of an indifferent and inherently unequal system.)
"Efficiency, sustainability, and preservation are the enemies of our economic system. Hmmm, should I take sides? That darn sustainability is a real drag.. how dare it get in the way of my addiction to "profit"!"
Again, arguably overstated but the truth underlying it is on point. What kind of logic is there in an economic system that undercuts the basis of its existence? Clearly the current philosophy of reckless consumption inheres an identifiable end point where resources will be tapped out and economies and thereby civilization will fail, so our wager is against our future - hoping its not in our lifetime that the bill comes due.
"There is literally enough wealth and there are literally enough resources on our planet for each and every person to live a life of abundance. When base human needs are met, people behave very differently than in a world which justifies killing for money."
What is this idea that some are entitled to wealth while others aren't? Have you ever stopped to really think about that? IS possession 9/10ths of the law? If so, is that law helpful or hindering to civilization in the long-term? If property is the basis of wealth and the goal of this little game we've created is to amass as much wealth/property for oneself as possible, isn't it conceivable that someday someone will?
I don't mean to sound as though I know the answer(s). I don't. But I think it's important to ask the questions. What is beneficial about individuals having billions of dollars? What's detrimental about that? What would have been the outcome had the government bailed out Americans instead of the banks? Was the only reason it didn't do so, a philosophical one (i.e. - No one can appreciate what isn't earned. Yet, if that's true, why doesn't it apply to banks - or at least the individuals who run them - as well?)?
Regardless of where you line-up on the issue of wealth, property, entitlement...the conversation we should be having in this day and age is what will be most workable and beneficial to all - even the ungrateful and ne'er-do-well - going forward. Old solutions conceivably won't work on the scale at which they must be employed today. What are new ones with which we can replace them?
Sadly, it seems that in the absence of vision regarding these issues on the part of leaders with populist tendencies, leaders with conservative/elitist (because I'm sorry, dumb as a box of bricks or not, Republicans represent a very elite interest in the incredibly incredibly wealthy. The absurdity of their party claiming to be that of the people is legion.) tendencies are busily reshaping the law to further benefit the haves. Certainly this isn't news, but it should be the impetus for the conversation, no?
Photo via
