The WSJ story headlining HuffPo has this great quote:
“This whole discussion of Grexit only leads to head-shaking for me,” Axel Schäfer, deputy floor leader of the Social Democrats in parliament, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. “We are now only talking about prices, and no longer about values.”
-- http://www.wsj.com/...
This distinction also came up this morning with Bernie Sanders on Face The Nation when he was asked whether he supported the Pope's critique of unbridled capitalism.
We need to be vigilant about distinguishing politics, economics and religion in the sense that religion addresses that which is sweeping and total about our lives as human beings.
Suggesting that capitalism should take social costs and human hurt(s) into account even when it might not be to the advantage of the company bottom line makes basic sense. It has been the Catholic Church's largely unnoticed position that money cannot be idolized above humanity. This position is about to be harshly attacked as stepping beyond religion's proper province to try to dictate politics and economics to unwilling but devout USA oligarchs. How dare Pope Francis? Shouldn't he know who he is messing with and "know his place"?
Saving the world in the abstract can justify treating Democrats badly. Saving the world in reality is going to entail compliance with some Democratic Party policy positions. Will Rush Limbaugh compare this to being anally raped by the Pope ... or is that reserved for our black, capable President?
I'm hoping that quote gives us a good way into this topic. I am hoping to hear some new ideas or insights into this distinction between bashing capitalism and bashing unconstrained capitalism.
[Pope Francis] does not simply argue that systemic “greed for money” is a bad thing. He calls it a “subtle dictatorship” that “condemns and enslaves men and women.”
-- http://www.nytimes.com/...
It is obvious and easy to say that people will take this the wrong way. We must not make it easy for them. Bernie is clear about this and we will see how much Hillary delivers tomorrow (I love Hillary, but I'm not supporting her today).
What are the insights or metaphors, for you, that help clarify this distinction?
When I say "social costs" I mean for example fracking and oil train derailments. These address the money issue because the damages exceed the costs of prevention and unfairly harm the victims. But the people doing the harm do not have political incentives to shield the public from these damages. Same thing goes for the banks; anything is considered do-able so long as it isn't too too flagrantly illegal on its face. Money isn't speech but it has its own way of talking. A society of human beings should be enabled to constrain how money is allowed to distort who pays for what. $26 trillion for the banksters, who are still in a position to do it all over again?
There has to be balance and we must vote Democratic to get it. Now how do we keep the media's feet to the fire?