Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 12, 2011, 6:10 p.m. EST by Alternatives2WallSt
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to Jesus Christ, "a tree shall be judged by its fruit." According to an old saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Nonetheless, I recently saw a so-called conservative author interviewed about his recent book. He was asked, "Aren't you concerned about the growing trend of extreme inequality?"
He replied, "Any degree of inequality is justified so long as it is achieved fairly."
By that standard, the USA could end up like India and Thailand, where average people are so deprived that they sell their sons and daughters into prostitution. And yet, some so-called conservatives evidently would be 'unconcerned.'
Since 1990, the stock market has made huge gains in value, but over 80% of these gains have been acquired by less than 10% of the people who dominate the Wall Street system: the stock market. Meanwhile, the average person has either lost his job to a computer or outsourcing--and those who keep their jobs are doing much more work by using computers, but not being paid any more.
This is not a discussion about liberal vs. conservative. I would simply like to ask these two questions.
If what YOU decide = "fair play" = a system where some people are so rich, and you are so poor, they can buy and sell your children, and have droit du seigneur over your spouse, or else you will starve -- are you NOT morally required to make adjustments to that system?
If 10% of the people end up with 80% of the wealth, and do so again and again every 20 years, how is it possible to avoid outcome no. 1?
Or if you prefer, to rephrase the question:
Should a tree be judged by its fruit?
Is extreme and growing inequality a "bad fruit"?