I don't think that's all of it, but public embrace of the Chicago School suspension of ethics for activities that serve "the love of money" is just plain nuts. That said, there is a whole lot of money to follow to identify the ultimate source of the enthusiasm for that worldview. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
No, it's not all of it by any means. IMO the bigger problem is that for all our reverence for "checks and balances," there's no institutional check on economic power, and any & all attempts to rein big money in are called "socialism."
We talk a good game when we rhetorically bow to "democracy", "justice", "checks and balances", etc., but living with all three is a challenge for individuals, since it means honoring certain limits on our own behavior, like stopping at a stop sign, when we are so, so, late. If you of a mind to be a bully, civil conduct is even more inconvenient, and often with enough pricey lawyers, you can bend the rules. We wink or shrug when rule after rule is bent out of shape. If we were to do a big triage of common political acts, how many would pass the "of, by and for the people" test? And how many fail completely? Due process of law? It's so confining. John Adams advised to never trust power without a check, but do we, when we like what power is saying? When we might have to compromise?
And do we become inured to corruption in plain sight? Many who grumble would put "Reducing Corruption" and "Getting excessive money spent to influence outcomes out of politics" in the back seat to more particular concerns. Bernie was lampooned by many Democrats for banging on about this, but what is a more encompassing barrier to progress, including social justice, including the climate crisis?
As for Socialism? The devil is in the details. I see a role for both private enterprise and a robust public sector in an optimal society, but in a democratic republic it is the people the people who make the rules for commerce, not vice versa. I would not exactly call Lincoln a socialist in the strict economic sense, but he was clear who should rule the roost.
тАЬLabor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.тАЭ
Aka under-regulated capitalism
I don't think that's all of it, but public embrace of the Chicago School suspension of ethics for activities that serve "the love of money" is just plain nuts. That said, there is a whole lot of money to follow to identify the ultimate source of the enthusiasm for that worldview. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
No, it's not all of it by any means. IMO the bigger problem is that for all our reverence for "checks and balances," there's no institutional check on economic power, and any & all attempts to rein big money in are called "socialism."
We talk a good game when we rhetorically bow to "democracy", "justice", "checks and balances", etc., but living with all three is a challenge for individuals, since it means honoring certain limits on our own behavior, like stopping at a stop sign, when we are so, so, late. If you of a mind to be a bully, civil conduct is even more inconvenient, and often with enough pricey lawyers, you can bend the rules. We wink or shrug when rule after rule is bent out of shape. If we were to do a big triage of common political acts, how many would pass the "of, by and for the people" test? And how many fail completely? Due process of law? It's so confining. John Adams advised to never trust power without a check, but do we, when we like what power is saying? When we might have to compromise?
And do we become inured to corruption in plain sight? Many who grumble would put "Reducing Corruption" and "Getting excessive money spent to influence outcomes out of politics" in the back seat to more particular concerns. Bernie was lampooned by many Democrats for banging on about this, but what is a more encompassing barrier to progress, including social justice, including the climate crisis?
As for Socialism? The devil is in the details. I see a role for both private enterprise and a robust public sector in an optimal society, but in a democratic republic it is the people the people who make the rules for commerce, not vice versa. I would not exactly call Lincoln a socialist in the strict economic sense, but he was clear who should rule the roost.
тАЬLabor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.тАЭ