• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

income inequality

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by childofGod1, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. childofGod1

    childofGod1 Regular Member

    +230
    Christian
    Single
    If your fellow man's appearance bothers you so much, you should leave. The rest of us are perfectly happy to share the world with every human being God created.



    If you got the government out of the charity business, you could pick and choose which children to help. Of course, when I'm giving to charity, I choose the children who can benefit from the help the most, but I guess if you want to base your choices on whether you agree with their parent's politics or not, that's up to you, as long as it's your own money you're using.




    By George, I think he's got it!
     
  2. Viren

    Viren Contributor

    +1,553
    Christian
    Single
    If the corporation is big enough can't it just undercut prices on it's competition?

    Standard Oil once controled 90% of the U.S. market and either bought out all their competition or uncut their prices just so they could raise them to whatever they wanted when the competition was gone.
     
  3. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    +2,429
    Humanist
    Private
    There are many ways in which one may work to improve one's life. The problem is that you have characterised one of these ways as "whining" and "envy", and by that measure a freed slave who recognised the systemic unfairness of being paid less than a white man for identical work would be seen as "whining" or "coveting". It sounds like you want to say "Shut up. Play the game, even though it's rigged in your disfavour. If you don't, then you're just envious and a whiner."

    To be frank, that is rather naive. The whole point is that these "oversized" corporations are able to make themselves more-or-less immune to competition by using their superior economic leverage to block a potential competitor's access to the field, thereby securing their grip on the market. This reduces competition and leads to a consolidation of gains. Without competition the number of choices available to consumers decreases.

    It is interesting though that you should use the word "oversized". It carries with it the implication that a corporation can get "too big". But we are told by conservative commentators that the size of a corporation shouldn't concern us, and that it certainly isn't grounds for treating large corporations differently from smaller businesses. By admitting that corporations can be "oversized" are you not in fact acknowledging that they can hold a disproportionate amount of economic influence?

    I am curious as to how you would justify that point of view. The notion that you owe nothing to society seems strange (even anti-social) to me. Is it bound together with "every man is an island" kind of thinking?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  4. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    So in terms of oil, gasoline, and kerosene, were we better off when Standard Oil controlled most of it?
     
Loading...