Just an observation that I have made concerning the recent general discourse on this site. It appears that those who argue for subjective truths in matters of faith are the same ones who try and apply objective virtue to economics!

In other words, if you argue that somebody can believe or have faith in whatever it is that they want, why can't that same somebody make as much money as they want?

I would think that if you would want to be taken seriously in any discussion that you would first want to be consistent.

Consistency lies in that as long as your faith is not negatively impacting others, go for it. If it is however affecting others in a bad way, perhaps restraint should be observed.

Apply accordingly.

Where does it say in the Bible that you are supposed to get filthy stinking rich while stomping on your employees and stealing their pensions? Maybe Luke 3-16?? I must have missed that verse. Thou shalt lie about profits and capitalize on stock increases. Thou shalt steal employee's retirement packages. Thou shalt capitalize on third world misery. Thou shalt dry scrog the entire middle class. I must have missed that in Sunday School.

Who said anything about the Bible, Van? (160/107 )

I probably should quit this forum for good, because I no longer have the faintest idea what any of you are talking about.

A good observation! Maybe Josh has explained it. Maybe it is the concept of justice and fairness that keeps popping up. It is tough to be subjective on everything. Justice seems to be one of the last things to be subjective.

I believe in God, and I believe that, whether you believe in Him or not, you can live a profitable life in a monetary form. This country, after all, was built on the belief in God (read the Declaration for goodness sakes if you don't believe that) AND the freedom to do many things, including wealth. But we all wish that this can be done without abusing others. Besides, just because there is a rotten apple in the bunch, doesn't mean that all of the apples are also rotten.

I hope that makes a little sense, anyway ...

[This message has been edited by Ben-wah (edited 5/3/2006).]

Gunnar

I would have to agree with you, I am lost any more on this forum. Oh Well, maybe we will get back to some sports, or even women's curling.

Back to the topic that I so inadvertently scrambled. I believe in the freedom of faith and the freedom of economics. As a person and or corporation goes forth in our capitalistic society and fulfills the American dream they should do so with some morale ambiguity. Monopolistic practices are illegal or in the case of Microsoft should be. Insider trading is illegal. As a person and or cooperation purses the American dream why should they not take their employees with them along with the stockholders. Profit sharing and stock options work. Why should corporations be allowed to steal their employee's retirement? Why should an open and free market mean the oppression of millions of employees?

Andrew Carnegie made millions and millions of dollars off of the backs of immigrant labor. He oppressed his workers and in one case had them killed by the Pinkertons. In later years, feeling guilty, he gave millions of dollars away. Carnegie Hall, Carnegie libraries. The difference between him and the CEO of Montana power is he earned it the old fashion way. He built it and then he gave back. Philanthropy is a lost art amongst the filthy rich. So if the rich are not giving to the less fortunate and the Church is unable to then who is left to help the people that cannot help themselves.

I know I got off the topic again or maybe I was never on it in the first place. I'm confusing myself-sorry Gunnar.

When I grow up, I want to be a philanthropist!

Van, great post. Right on target.

Van - I'm not trying to defend Microsoft or justify any of its monopolistic practices (nor am I trying to condemn it - if you're reading this, Rick - relax), but I do have to mention that Bill and Melinda Gates are two of the most generous philanthropists in the world. Their attitude toward the less fortunate is exceedingly rare, however.

On a more or less related note, I find it hilarious that W has suggested that oil companies put their profits into finding and producing more energy and pursuing renewable energy sources. Why would oil companies want to do anything like that? They'll stick with doing the same thing that earned the huge profits in the first place. They're not going to fix a system they don't consider to be broken. As I've stated before, as long as they get theirs...

I'm not arbitrarily slamming Big Business, so unclench your jaw, Rick. I just don't believe it's beyond the realm of reason to question high oil prices when record profits are set. Does it not make sense that if Exxon's profits were halved (to a paltry four billion per quarter - hard to get by on that, I know) that prices just might be a little lower? I don't believe government is the answer to everything, nor do I think Big Business can solve any problem. Neither is inherently evil, but both can be corrupted. I have more faith in representative government, however, because it is designed to represent (imagine that!) all people, not just stockholders or those on the payroll. And this attitude is described by some as elitist. Ha!