Hi again Jack,
We are finally fully moved in here in Evanston. Courtney put the last box away last night. So I'm happy to have the time and energy renew our conversation.
I found it very insightful for you to point out that one of my examples of a dysfunctional society is actually due to the fact that "a free market has been eliminated." You state this about my argument concerning the collapsed building in Bangladesh and other similar tragedies that befall poor laborers who work in nations with no or very minimal labor laws. So perhaps I can ask a similar follow-up question: Is it possible for free markets to truly remain free without at least a minimal amount of regulation? Labor laws protect the rights of workers to be able to use their mental and physical abilities to attain the full worth of what they create. Trust-busting and anti-monolopy laws improve competition driving down prices for the consumer and reducing the practice of price gouging. OSHA makes sure that the hamburger I buy at Joe's Sandwich Shop doesn't kill me. Financial regulators ensure that large banks don't cook the books so that our nation is led into a terrible recession (2008). I could cite many others laws and regulations such as the minimum wage, child labor laws, worker safety protections, etc. Do you see where I'm going? If you agree that the conditions I have describes are actually examples of free markets malfunctioning, then do you also accept proposals for regulations of the free market to ensure its viability? If so, you will sound very close to my own position (and the position of more left-leaning economists like Paul Kruegman and his "Conscience of a Liberal," among others). You have suggested the necessity of a "constitution" to safeguard against the natural tendency of the strong to oppress the weak, but I suggest that we must go beyond a mere constitution and be proactive about addressing social problems as they arise. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning of how you are using "constitution."
I have been thinking recently about a business practice ubiquitous in the inner city which I always found particularly angering -- the practices of loan sharks. On almost every street corner you find places that will give you cash today for a "small fee" and provided that you sign over your paycheck to them later. (I'm referring to businesses like "Check N to Cash," for example). Now the medieval Christians as well as the long Judeo-Christian tradition dating back to Moses has always condemned this practice and termed it the sin of "usury." Interestingly, the church has largely fallen silent on the issue (in fact, in the 32 years of my life, I have never once heard a sermon on the subject of usury). I interpret this as one way in which the church has accommodated to (and capitulated to) the American capitalist ethos. In short, do you find it morally reprehensible for businesses to take advantage of the poor who desperately need cash right away for basic necessities like food, healthcare, water, shelter, and clothing? I do. Do you agree with the vast majority of the Christian and Jewish tradition (and I believe Muslim as well) that usury is a sin? I would suggest that the Christian Church must actively oppose such systematic abuses of power since they keep the poor in poverty and, in fact, exacerbate their plight. You could apply this to credit card companies and their 39% interest rates as well. For this reason, I applaud the Obama administration, for example, for setting restrictions on credit card companies for the fees and interest rates that they are allowed to charge. I once met a man (a janitor and maintenance worker at Greenville College, actually) who foolishly racked up thousands of dollars of debt on his credit cards shortly after graduating from high school. He told me that he was just about to pay off the last of his debt, but as a 35 year old man it had taken him over twelve years to do so. I suppose the conservative might say that this man deserved to basically work as an indentured servant (let's call a spade a spade here) for over a decade since he made such rash decisions. I, however, don't take that line. I find fault in a credit card system and a society that allows such an injustice to take place legally.
To boil down this post (and I realize I'm only touching on a fraction of what we have been discussing), I'll state things this way: You claim that there are three ways to get money (creating it, stealing it, or receiving it as a gift). I believe that many businesses in our nation such as the loan sharks, pawn shops (some of which are attached to liquor stores so that you can go right in, sell your stuff, and come out with your whiskey all at once), and banks/credit card companies are actually STEALING rather than creating wealth. What say you, good sir? Ought Big Brother step in and meddle with the lassie-faire free market to prevent such theft? I vote yes.
Yours,
Greg
