Recession

The inequality generated by decades of neoliberalism and the resentment it has caused across the world have in recent times led to uncertainties that only intensify the fear of recession.

• Growth is decelerating worldwide, including United States which is experiencing 50-year low unemployment rate. China lost momentum with industrial growth at a 17-year low. Prospects for the third quarter are gloomy as well.
• The performance of major economies affects the rest of the world economy. For example, depressed Chinese demand caused the fall in Thailand’s second quarter growth rate to the lowest since 2014. 
• Scattered talk has given way to widely expressed fears of an impending recession affecting financial investment behavior, with investors dumping stocks and shifting to government bonds, resulting in a slump in stock markets.
• The deeper malaise is the depressed demand due to extreme inequality in assets and incomes that has resulted from decades of neoliberal growth across the developed world. Globalization moved productive activities to cheap labor locations had depressed wages across countries with large profits for a few and tax concessions for the rich have accentuated inequality.
• Incomes in the top percentile have exploded, those in the middle and lower ranges have  stagnated sapping consumption demand. Growth came by finding ways of stimulating demand not depending on current income, but driven by credit. That, beyond a point, is not sustainable and the fear of another recession is likely.
• The USA-China trade war and other countries responding with similar measures, the world is faced with a proliferation of beggar-thy-neighbor policies that makes a bad situation worse. The unknown consequences of Brexit cannot be anything but adverse. These uncertainties intensifies the fear of recession.
• The challenge for capitalism was finding an alternative way of reviving demand depressed by underlying inequality. In the past the states used to step in to lift economies out of recession with their spending for a short a time. With neoliberalism that has shrunk the revenues of the state and public spending being is mostly debt-financed, this option was shunned. The only way to drive private demand is with credit in the form of near zero interest rates and getting central banks to hugely increase liquidity in the economy.
• Capitalism’s current predicament arises because this policy has not worked, though it has been experimented with very low interest rates and in some countries even have turned negative. While this policy has not delivered growth, it has encouraged speculation financed with cheap credit. This has led to accumulation of corporate debt as firms borrowed mainly to speculate in financial markets and pay off their rich shareholders with costly share buybacks resulting in asset price inflation and financial fragility. But with low growth central banks were compelled to continue this policy regime.
• But as the threat of recession looms, erstwhile advocates of fiscal prudence and austerity such as the IMF are calling for adding fiscal stimuli to the policy mix. Infrastructure upgrades, expanding public housing stocks and targeted tax cuts should all be considered. This is the recipe for a return to more robust growth and inflation.

The recession threat is immediate and policy is likely to respond too slowly. If the recession does set in, it can be devastating. In 2008 China, Germany and India were affected less and this time they are among the countries whose performance could drive the recession. Corporate debt often denominated in foreign currencies at high levels, a recession would find many debtors defaulting on payments and forced to sell assets. That could result in asset price deflation and will have reverberations in an over-committed financial sector. Only a set of freak occurrences can prevent another recession.

Read the source article

Like unicorns, the 'free market' doesn't exist

What we have is not capitalism, it’s corporatism. Under real capitalism, the free market would prevent the destruction of our environment. All our problems would be solved if we just returned to the good competitive capitalism. There never has been, is not and never will be a capitalist free market economy. 

• Capitalism is meant to pivot around the free market. If the market were rid of government regulation then true competition would reign, with corporations battling it out to provide their goods and services to rational, all knowing consumers. This would provide stable and accurate prices and quality for goods and services as competition would aggregate supply, demand and pricing.
• The success or failure of a company would be directly proportional to its ability to meet the needs of its consumer.
• The recent failures – the bankers bailout, the corporatisation of government, the decline in social mobility – are because we do not have real capitalism. We are in fact in a post capitalist, state capitalist of fascist state. Whatever state we are in, it is as a direct and inevitable result of capitalism. 
• Corporations themselves are rabidly anti-competition.
• In Britain today, 97% of food purchased, is bought in supermarkets, with only four corporations making up 76% of those sales. In the US, 72% of food is purchased in supermarkets. As these figures continue an upward trend, we can see that monopolies are being created in food production.
• If we take a look and test the theory that the consumer would benefit from this process of corporate battles. Since the 1950's, the percentage of the US household budget spent on food dropped from 32% to 7%. In the UK the proportion spent on food has dropped from 33% to 15%. With supermarkets making record profits, and household food budgets down, who is paying the price for our food? The answer is the farmer and the environment. 
• Seventy years ago, there were nearly seven million American farmers, today there are two million. Now 75% of US produce comes from just 50,000 farming operations.
• The free market has seen a few corporations rise to dominate the market, set their own prices and lead to negative social impacts. While some consumers might see a fall in the price of the food they are buying, they cannot be sure that they are comparing apples with apples and while perhaps benefiting as consumers, they are losing out as producers.
• As seen above, it is not in the interest of the corporation to maintain a free market. The corporation has no reason to apply any kind of ethics whatsoever. Adidas employs child and sweatshop labor in the far east because it is cheaper than employing people on a living wage, with decent terms and condition.
• Historically the government, the purported servant of the people has been the enforcer of rules necessary to restrain the ‘market’ from behaviors which from point of view of the corporation would lead to undesirable social outcomes.
• In the US, by 2011 the largest thirty corporations spent more that year on lobbying government than they spent on taxes. 
• In the UK, corporations with outstanding tax issues are currently in working groups with the to redraft the very tax rules they are doing their best to avoid. 
• When corporations break the law, they are either not tried or given a fine which comes nowhere near the profits reaped by breaking the law.
• Recently banks have instituted fraud on a global scale by simply making up the LIBOR rate, the base interest rate, at the cost of savers and pensioners and to the benefit of their traders who specialize in debt, not capital.
• In 1950, corporate taxes made up 30% of federal revenues in the US. By 2012, this had fallen to just 7%. In the UK, Corporation Tax rates were cut from 52% to 35% over just two years between 1984-86 and has continued to be cut until it stands at just 21% today.
• Corporations do not want any rules which stand in the way of making profit. Left unregulated, they would simply operate in ways which maximized their profits regardless of social outcomes. When we introduce a regulator, corporations seek to and succeed in compromising them. The issue is not to blame one or other of the players, but the game of capitalism itself.
• The free market myth is nothing but a nonsense. It is a self serving nonsense propagandized by its beneficiaries.

In conclusion, not only is the market not free, but it never can be. It requires legislation to prevent rational corporate behavior which would undermine it, and any regulator (state or otherwise) will be corrupted by corporations seeking to influence them. The sooner we abandon this madness, the sooner we can answer the bigger question: how do we create a means of economic organisation which has the highest chance of meeting our social goals? We must abandon the myth of the free market, just as we gave up on Santa Claus and Unicorns – it is time to put away childish things so we can become grown up caretakers of ourselves, each other and the planet.

Read the source article

Growth focused economy is unsustainable

Most world leaders seem to believe that economic growth is a panacea for many of society’s problems. There are many links between our society’s addiction to economic growth, the disturbing ecological crisis, the rapid rise of social inequality and the decline in the quality of democracy. All these are deeply interconnected processes.

• Greater economic growth on its own does very little or nothing at all to enhance social well-being. 
• Reducing income inequality is an effective way to resolve social problems such as violence, criminality, imprisonment rates, obesity and mental illness, children’s educational performance, population life expectancy, and social levels of trust and mobility.
• Societies that are more equal do much better in all the aforementioned areas than more unequal ones, independent of their GDP.
• Unchecked capitalism tends to increase inequality and undermine democratic practices. The focus of a successful social policy should be to reduce inequality, not to grow the GDP for its own sake.
• Our frenetic economic activity has already transgressed ecological planetary boundaries. If current trends continue, humanity will soon face dire and dramatic consequences.
• Constant economic growth is a biophysical impossibility in a limited biosphere, and the faster the global economy grows, the faster the living systems of the planet collapse. This growth increases inequality and undermines democracy, multiplying the number of social problems that erode human communities.
• We have created a dysfunctional economic system of growing the pace of production and consumption, destroys the ecological systems upon which it depends. And when it does not grow, it becomes socially unsustainable. In a game with these rules, there is no way to win!
• Breaking the spiral of socio-ecological disaster is easier than we think. We do not need a new planet to colonize, but only to change the way we frame things.
• The economy is a subsystem of the ecology, not the other way around. If we begin to organize our priorities according to the biophysical reality rather than the market demands, it quickly becomes clear that our dominant economic system is absurd because it destroys the ecosystems that are the source of its wealth.
• In a desirable economic model the goal is to serve the well-being of communities and ecosystems and not to accumulate capital. At a global level we cannot afford to grow at all since we need to reduce economic throughput to be sustainable. 

Read the source article

If the rich nations in the world keep growing their economies by 2% each year and by 2050 the poorest nations catch up, the global economy of more than 9 billion people will be around 15 times larger than it is now. If the global economy then grows by 3% to the end of the century, it will be 60 times larger than now. The existing economy is already environmentally unsustainable. It is utterly implausible to think we can “decouple” economic growth from environmental impact since technological advancement have only increased our impacts on the planet, not reduced them. The GDP – the monetary value of all goods and services produced in an economy – is a deeply flawed measure of progress.

Morality in a free market

Are the markets moral? Should we expect them to be? Moral according to whom? 
If they’re not moral, are they immoral? Amoral? Or value-neutral?

• Morality describes the codes of conduct put forward by a society. It can refer to a system of conduct to which all rational persons, regardless of culture, would subscribe. Morality deals with our sense of fairness and our sense of responsibility to others. Implicit in morality is the idea that there are right ways and wrong ways to act.
• A market is any structure under which commerce takes place: the purchase of land, stocks, airline tickets, vegetables, sporting events, whatever it may be. These structures begin as neither moral nor immoral. They are indifferent as water. Markets are meant simply to be vehicles for finding the most efficient way to balance supply and demand. The freer the market, the less encumbered by regulation, and the more efficient it should be. 
• From a social standpoint, unfettered markets can lead to situations most of us would consider immoral: vast populations of have-nots, a ruined environment, plutocracies and other dystopian scenarios.
• How can we influence markets so that they can help us build the kind of world we believe we should have?The misalignment between markets and morality -- public good versus individual rights. How markets should be governed is a discussion about capitalism itself. Capitalism has brought so much to so many in so short a time. Is it perfect? No. 
• Even as our free-market system has raised living standards to levels once unimaginable, the backlash against the markets has gotten louder. The Occupy Wall Street movement is the most visible example. Most of the protesters say they aren’t against the markets. They’re against injustice and inequality and that the system is rigged against them. They say it’s criminal for a CEO to make several hundred times the earnings of an average employee. 
• It’s disgusting for a company to shut down a plant, throw workers out on the street, and, destroy a town’s economy for no reason other than that a cheaper source of production has been found elsewhere. Only government can make the markets work in the public interest and not in their own interest.
• Something in our society is out of whack. The stock market is up but people don’t have jobs. The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing. There’s an international super-class traveling the world in private jets, living in a series of penthouse apartments, while the rest of us can only shake our heads, grow embittered, and soothe ourselves with reality programs that exploit some of society’s most pathetic individuals so that we can feel superior to somebody, thereby mitigating our doubts about our own positions in the socio-economic hierarchy. 
• All systems tend to perpetuate themselves, to act in their own self-interest until curbed by some other force. John Ruskin believed that honesty wasn’t just the best policy; it was the only policy that would allow an economy to steer clear of chaos. Many corporations have learned that corporate social responsibility isn’t just charity. It fosters long-term value. Business is the most powerful force in the world, and when approached in a certain way, it promotes both economic and social good.
• Honesty fosters trust, and trust allows markets to function. When trust fails and when no bank would lend money because it didn’t trust the credit-worthiness of any potential counterparty -- markets crash.
• Those with great power and wealth have a responsibility to use it for good. Having accumulated more wealth than several men could use in several lifetimes, Mr. Bill Gates has devoted his fortune to initiatives aimed at eradicating disease and poverty in some of the world’s most backward geographies. 
• In the liberal democracies of the West, the free-enterprise system is not designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. And the markets, in the purest sense, aren’t listening. They tend to follow mathematics, not morals.You can be as ambitious as you want; you can achieve as much as your abilities allow; but you have to play by the rules. And the rules make the markets more open, more transparent and more fair.
• In the context of larger issues: the individual versus the group; equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome; and the difference between legal and moral, which ones do we place at the top? Ayn Rand would tell that the individual is all. By contrast, a honeybee would tell you that group welfare trumps everything.
• We’re individuals, but we’re part of and we have the ability to affect the group. We do it at the ballot box and we can do it in the markets. In investing we can choose to restrict our investments to companies that exhibit behavior consistent with our own morality.
• Rule breaking is an example of personal wrongdoing, not evidence of a corrupt institution. Can we blame markets for thieves like Bernie Madoff? Do markets create greed, along with motivation?
• Look at Madoff’s sixty-billion-dollar swindle. He caused tremendous damage. He bankrupted successful businesses and charitable organizations. He reduced families to penury. His own son committed suicide. But anyone who considers Madoff a representative money manager is mistaken. He is simply a criminal.
• There are situations in which entire industries have acted immorally.The sub-prime lending crisis of 2007-08. Banks pushed people to borrow more than they needed, more than could really afford, because the banks made the most money that way. Some of the biggest culprits were deemed “too big to fail,” and were granted immunity for their mistakes. 
• A moral society seeks the best opportunity for all its members. It protects the weak while allowing ambition to express itself fully. A corporation seeks to maximize its profits while staying within the law and doing right by its customers, workers and the community in which it undertakes its activities. Some corporations take it as a point of pride to create excellent working conditions, encourage social commitment, and to act as a moral society in miniature.
• Whether markets seek to be moral or not is irrelevant, because they have proved an effective tool for improving lives. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”
• The idea that everything in life can be reduced to supply and demand may not be the most valid way to look at all human interaction. At what point does that premise begin to corrupt the social fabric?
• In New York, Washington DC etc a cottage industry of line-standers has now grown up and you can hire people to stand in line for you in case you have more money than time. It creates a positive good for two people -- the line-stander and the playgoer.
• In Washington DC -- line-standing companies employ homeless people to stand in line for clients who want the limited seats available for Congressional committee hearings and Supreme Court sessions open to the public. Lobbyists and others are often happy to pay for access. From a market standpoint: supply and demand. Socially? It kind of doesn’t smell right.
• At Disney World, people in wheelchairs and their families don’t have to wait in long lines for rides. They’re placed at the front of the queue. That seems morally correct. So some people of means have paid disabled strangers to pose as their family members. This is immoral and dishonest.

As long as we would prefer to pay more for a good that is produced in accordance with our values than pay a lower price for an article that is made by taking advantage of those without the means to redress unfair conditions, we will be moving the markets towards a more just, more moral position. The fact is we aren’t always willing to do that. Regulation can fix some of the problem, but personal responsibility -- knowing what you are investing in and buying -- can play a bigger role.

Principles aren’t principles until they cost you money.

Read the source article

Capitalism is breaking down

Former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan has warned "I think capitalism is under serious threat because it's stopped providing for the many, and when that happens, the many revolt against capitalism." He said governments cannot afford to ignore social inequality when considering the economy.

• It was possible in the past to obtain a middle class job with modest education. But the landscape has changed in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis and the resulting austerity. Now, if you really want to succeed, you need a really good education.
• Unfortunately, the very communities that are hit by the forces of global trade and global information tend to be communities which have deteriorating schools, rising crime, rising social illnesses and are unable to prepare their members for the global economy.
• A S&P Global Ratings report suggests another global credit downturn is possible. Since 2008, government debt has risen 77% while corporate debt is up 51%.
• Capitalism is breaking down because it is not providing equal opportunities. And the people who are falling off are in a much worse situation.
• Authoritarian regimes arise when you socialize all the means of production. A balance is needed, you can't pick and choose - what you need to do is improve opportunity.
• Governments must give people evolution, or the people will give the governments revolution. 
• Sooner or later; capitalism will also need to absorb the fact that the planet's population cannot be allowed to keep increasing at current and past rates; to provide it with ever greater supply of consumers.
• Capitalism has failed with only a few at the top benefiting excessively, and accountants and lawyers being perceived as more important than doctors, engineers, and scientists, who actually benefit the country.
• Capitalism has many faults but the socialism has never worked either.

Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address declared that democracy is the “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Tragically today America is of the one percent, for the one percent, by the one percent. Americans in the top one percent of earners make an average of $1.32 million per year.

Read the source article

Communism, Democracy & Socialism

• Communism and democracy are two different ideologies that have rendered great impact in the world. Communism can be termed as a socio economic structure that stands for the establishment of a classless, egalitarian and stateless society. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system. Communism is regarded as an extreme form of socialism.
• Democracy is a political system of governance either carried out by the people directly or by elected representatives.
• Communism is a political ideology that is based on a common ownership, mainly concerned with equality and fairness. In communism, the power is vested in a group of people who decide the course of action and decide on the activities of the public. They may interfere in the public life of others. On the other hand, democracy also stands for equality in the society, is governed by a group of elected people. Democracy is a rule by the people and the elected representatives are bound to fulfill the wishes of the society.
• In communism, the government has complete control over the production and distribution of goods and all the resources and is shared in the society equally. But in democracy, this aspect is not there.
• In communism, it is the society that holds the major resources and production. This prevents any single person or a group of people from raising to a higher position than others or becoming rich. In democracy, free enterprise is allowed, which means that people or groups can have their own businesses that can lead to rich and poor in society.
• Socialism supports the view that the goods and services produced should be dispensed based on the productivity of an individual. In contrast, communism believes that the wealth should be shared by the masses based on the needs of the individual.
• In socialism, personal properties can be kept, socialists make sure, however, that no private property will be used as an instrument for oppression and exploitation. Communism treats all goods and services as public property to be used and enjoyed by the entire populace.
• Democracy is based on the principle that all citizens have equal rights. In democracy citizens have certain liberties and freedoms that are protected by the constitution. In communism private ownership is not allowed whereas in democracy it is allowed.

Socialists regard capitalism as a threat to equality and public interest. They believe, however, that there is no need to eliminate the capitalist class because it can be used as a good instrument in the transition to socialism as long as it is properly controlled. Socialists also believe that capitalism can exist in a socialist state and vice versa. From the point of view of the communists, capitalism must to be destroyed totally in order to give way to a classless society.

Economic insanity

Theoretically, we should be able to provide for everyone's needs and reasonable wants with in a static economy. The only reason why endless growth is necessary in the capitalist system is simply that it is the mechanism by which the system works. Without growth, capitalism deteriorates. But growth imperative causes serious side effects, one of which is the tendency to confuse both money and debt with wealth.

• If we don't consume or use up real wealth, it perishes on its own. We can't store enough of it to satisfy our lifelong needs. The only way we can make today's wealth fulfill tomorrow's needs is to lend it to others, put them in our debt, and persuade them to pay us back over time, with interest. While debt tends to expand regularly and indefinitely, the wealth it symbolizes cannot.  
• The ruling passion of individuals in a modern economy is to convert wealth into debt in order to derive permanent future income from it. That is the heart of the capitalism. But the idea that all people can live off the interest of their mutual indebtedness is a vulgar delusion on a grand scale.
• In reality, only the minority earns significant interest and the majority pays it. But the difference between what the majority owes and what it is able to pay steadily widens. Debt grows exponentially, but new real wealth which common laborers must repeatedly create new real wealth to pay the interest on their borrowings does not. We can never produce enough actual growth in wealth to keep up the exponential growth of our debts. We just roll them over and end up borrowing to pay up interest on them which is nothing more than a giant, legalized Ponzi scheme.
• The solution to debt crisis is a further dose of growth. The way to grow is to invest, and the way to invest is to borrow. The solution to debt is to increase the debt! How it is believed that new debt will be used productively than the older debt is never explained.
• The resultant explosion of debt will lead to defensive actions by borrowers include inflation, bankruptcy, confiscatory taxation, fraud, or outright theft. These are socially and economically destructive actions and yet they are also the inevitable fruit of compound interest which we deem normal and acceptable.
• Growth in the money supply is the “leading edge” fueling productivity and economic expansion through debt. The logical solution to this dilemma is simple. Since exponential growth of real wealth is impossible, we must tie the money supply more closely to wealth to keep it from expanding needlessly. 
• Exponential growth of money and debt creates unrealistic expectations for similar growth in real wealth which in turn puts immense pressure on short term profits and return on investment. Thus to attract capital, businesses must offer competitive return which often means they search the world over lowest-cost production opportunity. Thus manufacturing gets relocated to countries with lowest labour wages and returns greater.
• Free trade between nations brings only unrestricted capital. But labour stays put which results not in mutual benefit to both the nations but significantly lower wages to the nation that loses capital.
• Balance of trade and capital mobility is the way country borrows in real terms is to import more than it exports. In the last few decades, US has run up staggering trade debt means that immense amount of capital has moved out to other countries. No economist would maintain that this large trade imbalance can continue to expand forever. At some point capital will have to start flowing in opposite direction to bring the account back into balance. For this to happen wages and benefits of US workers have to fall to globally competitive levels. The living standards of US workers will drop significantly. Americans must somehow change course to a limited growth economy—and even accept a no-growth paradigm—or the whole system will explode.
• An economical economy is inherently conservative (not wasteful) in both its production and consumption. In the restorative economy products will require more labour, use less energy and produce less waste. Productivity will go down but employment and profits will go up. This runs contrary to conventional economic logic. Taxation and fees must discourage frivolous, dangerous and dirty products and encourage useful, safe and clean products.
• Such a system will remove incentives for unlimited growth, discourage or deterr formation of enormous, impersonal and capital driven corporations and encourage small, employee-owned, service oriented and environment-sensitive businesses.

There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need 

but not for man's greed ... Mahatma Gandhi

We have far more oil, coal and gas than we can safely burn without global warming. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels produces least amount of energy and the greatest amount of pollution and threatens clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and a safe climate. In the name of globalization human consumption & wastage has crossed ecologically sustainable limits and piles of waste has proven disastrous to environment. Pollution haunts every city in the world. Enormous burning of oil & gas adds to the woes. While over population is the fundamental cause, other aspects of over consumption and wastage and elimination of unnecessary and dangerous items is in our hands.

The insanity of endless growth

Almost all governments, business, media and both the political ‘left’ and ‘right’ are busy extolling endless growth on a planet which is finite. Clearly endless economic growth is impossible, and its pursuit unsustainable and unethical and such destructive pursuit of the impossible is insane. Humanity is totally dependent on the biosphere and it is degrading. Hence society needs to realize that we are way past sustainable ecological limits. 

• The most drastic effects of the rise of economic growth are the impoverishing of democracy, the loss of liberty, and the abandonment of equality. We must subject the economy to the ideals of democracy, liberty, equality, and unity. The drivers of free-market system are causing interrelated problems and if we are to turn our nation from this path of folly, we must first abandon the faulty assumptions that drive our thinking. The four pillars of capitalism - endless economic growth, ever-increasing productivity, accelerating technological advances, and self-interest must be abandoned. Economic insanity challenges people to stop looking for answers within the system and look instead to changing the system.
• The reality is that endless economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable, especially if society has exceeded ecological limits. There are ‘limits of growth’; and the ‘endless growth mantra’ within society is unsustainable. The three main drivers of ‘unsustainability’ are overpopulation, over consumption and the growth economy. 
• The ‘decoupling’ strategy by switching over to renewable sources of energy etc has its merits and limits, and at best a partial solution to the problem. The key social problem is denial of our predicament along with the contribution of anthropocentric modernism as a worldview that aids and abets that denial. At best attempts at decoupling slow down the rate at which things get worse. Talk of 100% decoupling is likely to be merely a wishful thinking.
• Human population growth and the concomitant increase in the consumption of resources would exceed planetary limits around the middle of the 21st century, causing societal collapse. The Global Ecological Footprint now stands at 1.6 Earths. The Living Planet Index has declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.  The species extinction rate is at least 1000 times normal. At least 60% of ecosystem services are degrading or being used unsustainably. We are bankrupting nature and consuming the past, present and future of our biosphere.
• Economic growth is seen as the panacea for almost all societal ills. Commitment to growth is being promoted in the guise of free trade, competitiveness, productivity – or even as sustainable development which is an oxymoron. Sustainable development requires a GDP growth rate of 5%, doubling output every 14 years. Economic growth can't be the cure for poverty, unemployment, debt repayment, inflation, population explosion, and so on.
• The idea of benefits of growth would trickle down and alleviate global poverty has failed. The verb ‘to grow’ has become twisted; its original meaning is to spring up and develop to maturity, a steady state. To grow beyond a certain point is disastrous. It is possible to develop scenario where full employment prevails, poverty eliminated, people have more leisure, and greenhouse gases drastically reduced, with low or no economic growth. It is a mistake to assume that economic growth is a necessity for full employment.
• Once we have exceeded ecological limits, growth will make us worse off with uneconomic growth. Products scarcity leads to advocacy of even more growth. This becomes a death spiral. Healing our world requires accepting the reality that the economy cannot grow forever. 
• A dismissal of ecological limits and the rapidly worsening environmental crisis indicates many are still in denial of the insanity and unsustainability of endless economic growth. Many things change and solutions become easier if we change our worldview and ethics. Society needs to return to ecocentrism and adopt an Earth ethic and undertake the work of repairing the Earth and changing to a worldview of ecocentrism to step on the path to a sustainable future.

We have been locked into an insane growth fantasy for two centuries, but the past does not mandate the future. It is time now to grow up. We need to acknowledge the scale of the problem, abandon denial, and move towards a major shift in worldview. This is a big task, but also an exciting, positive challenge – one nobody should deny.

Read the source article

Four Earths would be needed if everyone lived like Americans.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem 
brings us face to face with another problem ... Martin Luther King, Jr.

Growth mantra has simply made rich much richer while poor remained poor. The disparity between rich and poor has widened like never before. This trend can't go on forever. In order to retain our humanity in the face of ecological limits, we would have to confront inequality head on. If wealth were divided equally among the all the people in the world, the per capita material affluence would drop significantly. Global society has already entered the phase where the capacity to grow, to generate real new wealth, is declining. When growth stops, tensions mount. Only the tyrannical state, with its monopoly on violence, its enormous bureaucracies, its tentacles reaching into every facet of life, will have the power to save us from the stupidity called the freedom to grow forever. 

Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law

The significant achievement of human civilization during past 300 years is the evolution of law in a structured manner and conceptualization and enforcement of 'equality before law'. It is the fact that the poor suffers in the hands of law, and the rich men enjoys the life without much botheration about law. A poor man getting into any problem cannot come out of the police station or court easily and jailed easily with no means to get a bail. Whereas a rich politician or businessman, in most situations, come out of the station very easily with the influence of money and muscle power avoiding jail with simple bail. Accused poor is always always convicted and the accused rich are mostly acquitted. This is what happening in our country. 

• A law is made with the express intent to help people in getting justice through a legal system, thereby aiming to achieve the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. But very often the law fails to serve this purpose.
• There just cannot be one law for the rich and connected, and another for the poor and unconnected. Everyone is entitled to be treated equally in his dealings with the public authorities.
• The innocent, simple, illiterate and the poor cannot access legal procedure because it is highly expensive, complicated and time-consuming to them. So they look upon law from a distance as a frightening scarecrow.
• On the other hand, some people in society like those strong, greedy birds, tame, twist or tarnish a law and use it for their own benefits. Some others follow suit and seize the opportunity, too. Thus the law is made into a no-more frightening, rather a tattered scarecrow.
• It is this second group that is mainly responsible for making many laws ineffective. Not only that, they make law an accomplice in fulfilling their greed for power and possessions.
• Our laws are adequate for the purposes intended. Our weak point is the enforcement part. We have a system, but we do not seem to be able to work the system according to the Rule of Law which posits three things: (1) that everyone is deemed equal before the law; (2) that the law is applied in its generality; and, (3) that the law is applied neutrally.
• Generality of laws, the Equality of everyone before the law, and the Neutrality of the law means that if any law is used to target a person, a group or a class of persons, then the Rule of Law is breached.
• The Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2009 has as its foundation a special provision with the objective of achieving quicker disposal by expert tribunals that involve a sum of Rs.5 crore or more. The idea is to facilitate their early disposal so that the rich who are involved in such disputes do not have to wait for too long for a final adjudication. 
• Meanwhile, the poor person whose litigation mostly involves a value that is below Rs.5 crore has to wait for the outcome at the Munsiff’s Court, the District Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court that take decades before a final judgment comes. Often it takes more than a generation. 
• Obviously the rich are favoured by helping them achieve early finality while the poor and the middle classes have to hang on often for a life-time for an outcome. 
• Democracy is fundamentally equality of the judicial process. To make the monetary value of a commercial dispute the basis of classification is undemocratic. Indian socialism and democracy are the victims of feudalism, capitalism and corporate control, even as the courts enjoy longevity without accountability. 
• The legislation classifies litigation into two categories. The poor litigant will wait for the somnolescent process and leisurely pronouncement and the wealthy litigant will have his case speedily terminated. If this be the differentiation, it is horrendous and outrageous in a socialist democracy. Perhaps Oliver Goldsmith was right when he said “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.”

Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Be ye ever so high, still the law is above you ... Thomas Fuller

How much is enough?

• "How much is enough?" is a good question. Anyone involved in capitalism and markets will find this question uncomfortable. It is a qualitative question and is about how money makes us feel about spending, saving and giving and values we stand for.
• Enough is the quality of having everything you need and want but nothing in excess and nothing that burdens you. 
• Income to meet the expenses of frugal living, a home, a car, insurance for health & life, provision for children education and their well being, provision for health shocks, leisure, passions and retirement - is what is enough. 
• The best thing one can do to children is to give roots & wings. And the worst thing is to give them a mountain of wealth under which they will get buried never knowing what they are and what they wanted to be in life.
• Our culture is geared towards endless consumption and upgrades. Reasonable wealth is comfort. Meaningful testament to a life is well spent.
• While personal debt is bad, public debt is necessary not only for prosperity but to avoid economic disasters. A good economy must serve the needs of many instead of the few.
• A great economist told students that the capitalist system was capable of delivering such a sustained and steady increase in output that workers would eventually have all the material goods they could possibly want. They would need to toil for only 15 hours a week and could then spend the rest of the time enjoying themselves. Capitalism was a means, a rather distasteful means, to this end.
• Capitalist economies are efficient, but workers were unsatiated by any material possessions, and devote any of their time to their pleasures. The new servant class which emerged and served the needs of neo rich were paid little more than subsistence wages.
• Modern world is characterised by insatiability, an inability to say enough is enough, and the desire for more and more money. Economics, a narrowly focused discipline in which there is no distinction between wants and needs, has driven to the end of a cul-de-sac. 
• The short-term need to get the economy moving again should not deflect policy-makers from reforms that will lay the foundations of a saner, more stable world.
• Progress should be measured not by the traditional yardsticks of growth or per capita incomes but by the seven elements of the good life: health; security; respect; personality; harmony with nature; friendship; and leisure. 
• Job security is much weaker and the pressure on the environment has increased.
• There is more to life than gross domestic product. Growth at all costs has become enshrined as the goal of economic policy. We live in a country divided into workaholics who have more money than they know what to do with and millions of unemployed and under-employed citizens struggling to make ends meet on the proceeds of work in the informal economy.
• In the middle, there are the debt slaves worried about the mortgage and often one pay packet away from penury. We ought to be able to do better than this. They favour a society with liberalism, social democracy and the good society is within reach.

A little house well filled, little wife well willed and 
little land well tilled are the greatest riches ... Shakespeare 

Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point ... Bill Gates

The fortunate man is he who, born poor, or nobody, works gradually up to 
wealth and consideration, and, having got them, dies before he finds 
they were not worth so much trouble ... Charles Reade

Earnings beyond certain point usually result in gaudy life style - excessive spending, amassing wealth, paying excess amounts for services without much substance. These activities contributes to increase in consumption and wastage, emissions and abuse of nature. Every luxury looses its vigor after 20 uses. You begin to own many things and eventually things will own you. Display of wealth or possessions is not only vulgar but also reflects low self esteem, make others feel jealous, lose real friends and win false acquaintances. They become more and more insensitive and end up knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. 

Warren Buffet believes that setting up his heirs with a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb can be harmful for them and is an antisocial act. The perfect amount to leave children is "enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing." Bill and Melinda Gates are giving a $10 million only for each of their three children with a remark "It will mean they have to find their own way in life". 

Democracy and its Perils

• Democracy is a political system which combines the elements of fairness, legitimacy and effectiveness. It is the least worst system. 
• Democracy is imperfect and, when misapplied or incorrectly interpreted, can be saddled with flaws and weaknesses. 
• Democracy is the most expensive & inefficient form of governance.
• A democracy is not a democracy unless it has independent and strong institutions that help facilitate good governance and right thinking citizens demanding accountability and transparency.
• Proper democracy is far more than a perpetual ballot process. It must include deliberation, mature independent institutions and checks and balances. It may include educated citizens, strong civil society and strong laws.
• Freedom is an essential part of democracy. Freedom is essential for both the ruled and the ruler.
• Unfettered freedom brings with it its own hazards that would undermine the institutions that help sustain democracy.
• The victim of democracy is the politics itself. Politics in a democratic set up tends to be looked upon with contempt by the people. It is much maligned and abused field in all the democracies.
• Politicians once elected to power become the custodians and abusers of power.
• Bad politics leads to corruption. As the people responsible for corruption are ‘enabled’ to loot the exchequer either by the loopholes in the laws or indifferent ‘people’ who form the very basis of democracy.
• Corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, because of the indifferent attitude of the people and enabling environment provided by democracy for the corrupt to practice their art. 
• Democracy aides both the individual and the ‘corrupt’ authority. Democracy with weak institutions gives them free hand to run the government, they tend to err, and err with impunity.
• Criminalization of politics is the biggest peril of democracy. With it comes misuse of position and authority. It inevitably leads to corruption.
• Corruption directly brings underdevelopment and spawns poverty. In India poverty is the major benefactor for the politicians. As long as poverty is sustained, they can amass wealth – always unaccounted.
• Democracy promotes capitalism which in turn results in uneven wealth distribution. Rich becomes much richer while poor remain poorer.
• Risk of capitalism is usually socialized while profits gets privatized.
• Democracy in itself is not a threat, but any weak link within it is bound to weaken the whole structure.
• Democracy has become synonymous with elections and is reduced to the process of elections.
• In democracy poor people vote, and the elected become rich at the cost of the poor. It’s a government of the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts vindicate the statement. If 70% of India’s population still earns less than Rs 50 per day, even after 70 years of independence, should we compliment ourselves or introspect?
• Development has suffered more in democracy than in other forms of governments. Though it is fashionable to say that democracy is better than despotism despite lack of development, does it do justice to the vast millions who go to sleep hungry?
• Within democracy, we need a change of mindset both of the people and politicians in their attitude towards development. We are witnessing the loot of our resources by the powerful few who are covertly supported by the government machinery. Every penny that’s put to improve the lot of this country is unaccounted for. The crux is lack of accountability.
• Education of the masses and strong institutions is a solution to most problems in India.
• Institutions which are not pestered and interfered by the ruling classes perform better. The fear that these institutions if given complete autonomy would grow as a threat is unfounded. The Supreme Court of India and Election commission of India are governed by bureaucrats, not by the elected politicians. These institutions function well within the scope of our constitution.
• Our military has gained reputation for being fair to its people and the constitution. Where there is no interference by the politics, the institutions serve well. For a democracy to thrive and bring development to the masses, we need independent institutions to act as check and balances on the government.
• We need universities which are not at the mercy of government; we need public service commissions not interfered in their functioning by the government; we need a strong Lokpal to punish the corrupt; strong local governments to bring development at the bottom; independent CBI and a police force which is pro-people; the list goes on.
• These changes are not difficult to bring on. It is the will which is missing, lest it affects the power of few to amass the wealth. Perils of democracy are the result of loopholes within it. To plug them, we need to fight. Of course, non-violently.
• A blanket endorsement of it as a convenient panacea will do more harm than good.
• There are very few nations on this Earth, which openly reject the notion of democracy. Most countries espouse it, or at least offer it lip service.
• Myth #1: The people can do no wrong.  The legitimacy of majority rule with no reservations or caveats raises the issue of sub-units within the voters viz territorial, cultural, ethnic or religious. What happens if the people change their minds? Democracy cannot be just if it is not just over time. Does a coalition automatically legitimize the action of individuals or groups or nations without regard to higher principles of morality or ethics? The doctrine of popular infallibility can be kept as a useful reference point but must not be abused or overextended.
• Myth # 2: Direct  democracy is always better than representative democracy. Given the volatility of public opinion, the complexity of social psychology and the possibility of inter generational conflicts, the representative democracy is often superior to direct democracy, with the representatives acting as buffer. Mistakes can then be attributed to representatives and not to the people. The conventional assumption is that the will of the people should always trump that of the elites. The principal arguments against leaving too many decisions to the direct appreciation of the masses can be summarized as follows: (1) Uninformed or insufficiently informed electorate (2) Influence of money and media (3) People changing their mind (4) Contradictory Referenda (5) Deleterious effect on public policy.
• Myth #3: Democracy trumps all other social goals. The backlash against Dumb Democracy is the realization that democratization, although a valid goal, is not the only desirable one that a Society can legitimately aspire to. The following compete for priority with democracy. (1) Peace (2) Justice (3) Liberty & Freedom (4) Security (5) Good governance (6) Escape from extreme poverty (7) Public Vs Private goods (8) Good health (9) Traditional values (10) Climate change and sustainable development. 
• Myth #4: Democratic countries will never go to war against each other. There is a frequent assumption that once a country becomes democratic it will renounce violence, avoid going to war especially against other democracies, and try to resolve outstanding problems by peaceful means. Experience shows that the relationship between democracy and war is actually very complex and far from straightforward. 
• Myth #5: National democracy automatically leads to global democracy. Will a world composed of democratic nation-states automatically mean that it will also be democratic? This question is as complex and there are no simple answers. The UN Security Council, with coercive powers, is composed of five permanent members with veto powers who appointed themselves to that position. The other non-permanent members are elected by the UN General Assembly, but do not have veto power. The elected President of United States has real authority over the whole world by virtue of the overwhelming military power, which it has used in Iraq and threatens to do so elsewhere. There is a serious democratic deficit where 2% of the world’s voting population manages to have a determining influence on the entire world.
• There is no formula of global democracy and every formula suffer from inefficiencies and conflict of goals. The attempted simple transition from national to global democracy without a lot of preparation and adaptation is therefore destined to fail unless treated with a more sophisticated analysis.
• Other than democracy, there are no other known political alternatives which will work in the long run.  There is no permanent security in tyrants and the checks and balances of democracy make it the only sustainable political system, which can claim both long-term efficiency and legitimacy. Democracy must prevail because of mounting global interdependence requiring team responses and collective decision-making. A leader has to motivate his troops and keep their confidence. No single individual holds absolute power anymore, and everyone has to report to some group or a parliament, all leaders are accountable to some committee of peers, which makes democracy sustainable, indispensable and inevitable. 
• The modalities of this accountability have to be modulated and perfected.
• The construction of a democratic state must be gradual and well planned. It can rarely be imposed by non-democratic means. Democracy by force of arms is self-defeating. 

 In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great 
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; 
and in the next place oblige it to control itself ... James Madison

The Perils of Dumb Democracy


Ambedkar described constitution as a fundamental document stated that the purpose of a constitution is not merely to create the organs of the state but to limit their authority because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression. The legislature may be free to frame any law; the executive may be free to take any decision, and the Supreme Court may be free to give any interpretation of the law. It would result in utter chaos. Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic. Demonetisation has negated the fundamental and constitutional rights of Indians. By forcing every Indian, and not just the black marketers and counterfeiters, to stand in queues to withdraw hard earned money, our elected government has insulted all. Citizens have been temporarily deprived of property by a single fiat, even though the constitution says this can only be done with the authority of law. Countless have died, been rendered jobless, hungry and homeless. Is this a democratic act? RBI has been reduced to cipher. Fiscal policy has become political and the finance ministry redundant. The parliament and the cabinet have been turned into a mere formality. Judiciary appears seriously weakened. It is not easy for the victims of police and investigative agencies to get any relief against wrongful detentions and prosecutions. But it is the concerted attack on institution after institution by the Modi government that raises serious concerns. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship. India has moved away from constitutional democracy to populist democracy. Ambedkar is losing. Modi is winning.

Excess Profit is deeply immoral

• Profit shows that entrepreneurs are welcome.
• Profit proves that the economy is not a zero-sum game.
• Profit is a moral concept, since without profit we will suffer from a misallocation of resources, a failure to provide the goods and services that the economy needs, the loss of tax revenue, a reduction in employment and the inability to provide for social need whether through the private sector or the public sector.
• Profit is the surplus generated by individuals (or groups of individuals) putting capital at risk. It is the price of risk. Hence profit is also the reward for innovation and ideas. Without a reward for risk capital and innovation then the economy will not grow, provide for the needs of people, or create the wealth necessary for well-being.
• Profit is not exploitation. Profit generally arises from transactions that benefit both parties. Profit actually represents the creation of wealth from mutually beneficial transactions. Unless wealth is created there is no investment, no employment and no opportunity for social good.
• Exploitation is not a good thing and economic surplus may arise as a result of immoral behavior. The problem there is the exploitation, rather than the profit itself. 
• The idea that the economy is a zero-sum game. If one party makes a profit, that must be due to another making a corresponding loss, and moral outrage against capitalism ensues. Once profit is generated it is simply removed from the economy into the hands of the already wealthy.
• Profit shows that entrepreneurs are welcome. Entrepreneurs are the lynchpin of an economy. They are the creators and innovators of new ideas which then attract the capital investment needed. If entrepreneurs are not welcome, then an economy will stagnate. Entrepreneurs needed to be attracted by the prospect of profit, so that they will bring their ideas to fruition for the mutual benefit of all. An entrepreneur is not there to be squeezed (or even exploited) but for the economic and social good of society.
• Profit generates investment and employment. However, beyond the rewards which are taken, without profit then there is no means of investment whether in capital goods or human capital; in other words, no profit, no new markets, no new production and no new employment; indeed to the contrary we are likely to see a reduction in both. Many business people see the provision of employment, not necessarily as the primary aim of a business, but one of the aims of the business enterprise.  
• Profit provides the means for social transformation in society. Perhaps this is more controversial. If we take that position we damage the moral underpinning of the rationale for profit. Profit is a surplus. To argue that profit provides a basis for social transformation is not a statement that such transformation has to be achieved by the state.
• Government has a role to play and the generation of wealth and profit and lobbyists influencing for abnormal profits. Profit also allows individuals to act. Distributing profits for the well-being of individuals and families. Similarly profit provides the means for philanthropy. Profit doesn’t seem so bad.
• While profit is moral if earned ethically, morally, legally and in reasonable quantities, while excess profit is deeply immoral. The diving line is hazy.

The vice of capitalism is its unequal sharing of blessings; 

the virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. 

Whatever moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. 

And if it stops moving, subsidize it .... Ronald Reagan

My View:

There is no question that profit motivates entrepreneurs, boosts economy, creates jobs and boosts state revenues. Left view profit as exploitation. A company has profited at someone else’s expense. and that person stands exploited and hence profit is immoral. But unbridled profits arising out of monopoly or cartel forming or lobbying or consumer ignorance leading to abnormal profits is exploitation, immoral, illegal and crime. Excess profits also indicates that labour are underpaid and/or consumers over charged. Profits results in rich becoming richer while others remain as they are is socially unsustainable. All the above statements are true in a expanding economy but fails when economy is stagnating or shrinking. Excess consumption leads to wastage and ecological imbalances. Capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people. While capitalists desires to keep all profits to themselves they will come out with evil plans to socialise the losses. Capitalism only produces a small privileged rich who are beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor. Finally profit beyond certain point is immoral, exploitative and crime. 

Capitalism & Morality

• Capitalism is the most productive and efficient economic system.
• Some critics contend that capitalism is not a moral system.
• Morality is impossible unless one is free to choose between alternatives without outside coercion. Since capitalism is based on freedom of choice, it provides the best environment for morality and character development. 
• Business success not only requires but also rewards virtuous behavior by participants in the market.
• All human beings have natural rights endowed by their Creator or inherent in their nature, and have a moral obligation to respect the rights of others. Natural rights impose the obligation not to interfere with others liberty. 
• It is morally illegitimate to use coercion against someone who does not first undertake the use of force. The role of government, is to protect man's natural rights.  
• This freedom involves far more than simple democracy and an individual can pursue his freely chosen norms, actions, and ends without the arbitrary intervention of others. This freedom is necessary for individual morality. 
• There can be no morality without responsibility and no responsibility without self- determination. Self-determination implies rationality, honesty, self-control, productiveness, and perseverance. 
• Maximum self-determination for each individual is possible only when the state is limited to maintaining justice and defending against coercion, thus protecting life, liberty, and property.  
• Capitalism is a system of relationships and cannot be moral or immoral and individuals can only be moral agents. 
• A social system can be moral if it promotes moral behavior by individuals. 
• It is imperative to create a political and economic system that permits self-determination and promotes morality. Capitalism is that system. 
• Capitalism is only a means and requires individual participants to decide on the ends to be pursued. 
• No economic system can make people good. The best that an economic system can do is to allow people to be good. 
• Morality and virtue require that individuals be free to be immoral and of bad character. 
• When an individual has choice and bears responsibility for his actions can he be moral. 
• Capitalism allows the exercise of individual free will but cannot guarantee a moral society. 
• Human development requires more than material wealth. 
• Prosperity enables individuals to cultivate their talents, abilities, and virtues. 
• Capitalism is the best system for wealth creation, permits individuals to spend less time on physical concerns, leaving them more time to engage in higher pursuits. 
• Achievement of prosperity tends to reward moral behavior. 
• Businesses and their owners, managers, and employees have moral obligations. They must respect the natural rights of other individuals, which includes honoring contracts, not engaging in fraud, not using coercion against others, and honoring representations made to the local community. 
• Businessmen should not support government economic interventions, such as price supports, tariffs, and subsidies, even though doing so might result in higher profits. Doing so in nothing but use of coercion.
• Living up to these virtues will aid businessmen in the pursuit of profit. 
• The free market rewards polite, cooperative, tolerant, open, honest, realistic, trustworthy, discerning, creative, fair businessmen. 
• Lying to and cheating other businesses, misleading consumers, and mistreating workers all have serious adverse consequences. 
• In the long run, profitable businesses tend to be operated in accordance with the basic ethical principles most people hold dear.
• Under capitalism business transactions takes place by mutual agreement for perceived mutual gains only by serving the interests of others. 
• Protecting individual choice, capitalism generates enormous wealth, and creates an environment in which virtue can flourish. 
• Capitalism is not only the most productive and efficient economic system. It is also the most moral economic system!  

• Capitalism is an economic system that promotes inequality.
• Uncontrolled, capitalism will corrupt and undermine democracy.
• The vice of capitalism is its unequal sharing of blessings; the virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. 

My View:

All the above merits of capitalistic system seems to be very nice but in reality people are selfish, greedy and does anything to maximize their profits. In a highly educated society, with abundance of awareness, consciousness of individual rights, free of corruption at least at working levels, stringent law enforcement systems with highly deterrent punishments where citizens will voluntarily comply with laws otherwise they will be compelled to fear laws, capitalism will work to great extent. In poor, less educated & developing societies, free market capitalism is a bane and a distant dream.

Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with principles of democracy. Capitalism doesn't recognize equal rights of sharing natural resources. The rich consumes too much and poor too little. Capitalism only produces materialistic benefits and makes humans drift away from soil. A small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor. Capitalism creates materialistic wealth, makes people insensitive and impoverishes spiritually. In the pursuit of riches, economic systems often creates jolts which only hurts the poor. In poor and less educated societies poor gets exploited with scanty food & social security. In educated & affluent societies poor people are provided social and food security only to safeguard the interests of the rich. The only applaudable achievement of capitalism is that extreme poverty & starvation deaths are eliminated. The worst aberration in capitalism is that while risk is spread out on everybody, the fruits are cornered by the rich alone. Morality is incompatible with amassing wealth. Usually amassing wealth is associated with cheating & corruption, looting public or government and destruction of ecological assets. Since the system will not change the rules, we need to change the system.