Posted on 01/13/2012 6:14:08 PM PST by VinL
Furthermore, making a profit is only one component of owning a business. Whatever happened to the idea that you are responsible for your workers and to the larger community? Too often, people feel like just pawns in a ‘game’ of ever increasing largesse for the top dogs. The big shots are always the winners – often getting payouts in the millions when their companies fail — and the “losers” are left to figure out how to eat or buy clothes for their children. (A new study found that $100 million “golden parachutes” have become commonplace for failed CEOs).
Romney’s “class envy” claim is predicated on a lie we often here from the uber-rich and their defenders: the highest goal and achievement for Americans is to be wealthy, when all most people want is to be able to provide a decent lives for their families…
The unlikely hero in this tale has been Newt Gingrich, who has been making the most coherent argument for ethical capitalism. Says Gingrich, what we want is, “a free enterprise system that is honest. . . fair to everyone and gives everyone an equal opportunity to pursue happiness.” Criticizing Romney’s brand of free enterprise, (Newt)said, “It’s not fine if the person who is rich manipulates the system, gets away with all the cash and leaves behind the human beings.”
Be still my heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
“Capitalism tempered by Christianity is what made America great. Capitalism with no ethical temper at all leads only one place—communism.”
I can think of a particular big-fish talk radio host (along with all the smaller fish in his wake) who really needs to focus on this point, and take it to heart.
Kinda like "new Coke"? ;-)
You need to do some very serious soul-searching.
Amnesty -- and I live in Southern California and am RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINES of this issue -- is not a black-and-white thing. But it is PLAIN AND SIMPLE a black-and-white issue that to support Romney, the father of ObamaCare, and a constant advocate of bigger and bigger and more opressive government "for our own good," over Gingrich, who WAS A KEY PLAYER in implementing the Reagan revolution!!! -- urging support of Romney over Gingrich, as you do in your post 337, is to urge TEN TIMES the act of suicide as any postion Gingrich holds on amnesty -- and like you, I think amnesty is a bad idea.
Good on you, Marlowe. Well said. And for the record, I believe in intelligent design, and I think honest, disinterested science reveals intelligent design.
Yes. ;^)
Nice to see you about...
In truth, kabar's intent was to urge me to abandon Gingrich and throw my support to Santorum. THAT I can respect, not the least because Santorum is a decent conservative, though having watched the CSPAN video of Santorum's remarks to the panel in South Carolina, I am more convinced than ever that Santorum would be weak in debating against Obama, and IF, for example, we were surprised again and HILLARY ended up being the Dem nominee (a distant but still possible scenario), Hillary would simply wipe the floor with the gentlemanly, kind Santorum.
If, on the otherhand, it was Newt facing Hillary, EVERY AMERICAN, liberal or conservative, would get out the popcorn for an extremely colorful contest, and my money would be on Newt -- he'd be like Dorothy tossing water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary would be shrieking, "I'm melting! Melting! Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!"
And, after watching the CSPAN video of Newt's comments to the South Carolina panel, I think Newt's passion and eloquence would emphasize Obama's weaknesses, shallowness, and demagoguery in a way that is well beyond Santorum's capability, regardless of where Santorum's heart is.
However, IT IS QUITE ACCURATE TO SAY that according to your post #337, if, when the primary came to my state, it was either Gingrich or Romney, you'd be urging me to vote for Romney over Gingrich.
As I have said before, if Romney is on ANY BALLOT in front of me, my vote will go elsewhere.
Well, despite what Rush thinks, he missed out on a few things when he failed to complete college.
People forget that Smith was a moral philosopher, and that for him, the term political economy had a special meaning.
Gingrich is dealing with peoples' perceptions based on their observance of what has been happening on Wall Street the past few years. Of course, the MSM likes to pile on Wall Street, and never seems to mention the other party to their transactions; politicians in Washington DC.
People need to be reminded that it's Crony Capitalism that skews the benefits the regular person might derive from a more ethical capitalist system. I believe this is what Newt is trying to say with his comments.
When employers want to get the service without paying for it, or by taking so much for themselves that there is nothing left to pay the people who do the work, we have broken the social contract. That was what led to the rise of unions.
Well said! When workers see the bosses raking in the dough, then being penurious with them, it generates ill feelings and makes for a bad work environment. And yeah, they could move to a different company, but not everyone is mobile, and being stuck in a sorry situation makes for bad feelings all around.
There is nothing ethical or unethical about a capitalist system.
It is the people within that system whom are either ethical or unethical.
An economic system CANNOT make choices between right and wrong or moral and immoral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.