Comments on: The Violated Social Contract: A Debate Worth Having

By: Ferguson

Ferguson — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:34:31 +0000

I could not agree more with Isiah’s 1, 2, and 3 items at the bottom of his post. One of the essential elements common to these three but less pointed up by other posters is the issue of inflation. An honest and agreed upon definition and recognition of this issue must be central to any solution. The manipulation of inflation statistics and the less-than-honest reporting of same has allowed much flim-flamery to slide under the table, to the benefit of both major political parties as well as the crooks, and to the detriment of the citizenry. Described often as the “destruction of wealth,” an adequate description for purposes of this discussion, it has a universal application by that description. An unmanipulated unbiased accounting of inflation posted in an easily reached location for all to access, incontrovertible and unarguable in it’s form without fifteen pages of if’s, and’s, or but’s attached would go a long way towards re-established accountability on many levels of the financial system.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:18:17 +0000

“… Give us a debate worthy of a great nation in trouble.”

Tell it to FOX News.

By: perris

perris — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:52:46 +0000

So far as my capitalist free-market friends are concerned, there are signed paper contract and laws, and absolutely nothing else, i.e., no unwritten, implicit contracts.

that requirement is simple to satisfy, write into all corporate license;

“social obligations are what is in the constitution and what the public assumes they are as well as those that are written”

bing, their caveat is layed to waste

anyway, there is no problem writing what is at LEAST expected of their industry and anything less is breaking the law

By: perris

perris — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:48:24 +0000

man, I am pissed off I missed this discussion

here is the social contract that must be recognized by industry;

all laborers are entitled to put healthy food on the table for their family, put their kids through college if they qualify, take vacation every year to facilitate productivity, have health insurance so if their kid breaks an arm they can get it fixed, if their wife gets cancer she won’t pass away, and if anyone gets a cavity the tooth is treated so it doesn’t fall out

and a man must be allowed to retire, he must not be forced to work till the day he dies

when a company pays so little that social contract is not met, then the company is deferring it’s costs on to the rest of society, they are not paying their own bills

when we import product from countries that don’t provide at least the same obvious necessities for their labor force, then the product MUST face a tariff comenserate with those costs so the playing field is equal

that is the social contract we have to promote

By: wigwam

wigwam — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:51:48 +0000

EXACTLY!

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:50:24 +0000

Iasiah, Great post!!!

Let the debated begin:

The ’social contract’ either means something real and tangible, that may be felt and seen, or ’tis but an empty rhetorical ‘de-vice’.

A society with out a viable social contract is a slave society.

A ‘democracy’ lacking such a ‘contract’ is a sham, for then MONEY and BRUTISH ‘POWER’ will reigh supreme, making mock of social ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ …

By: Watson

Watson — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:28:34 +0000

The social contract that you describe is admirable. It might also be described as Keynesian economics, which proceeds from the problematic premise that there is or will be a government actor inclined to and capable of providing regulation/oversight of capitalism.

But the problem is that capitalist ‘competition’ consists of big fish eating little fish, resulting in a relative handful of whales and sharks, whose economic power gives them control of the political process, and domination of government policy.

This is an election that has the potential to galvanize an ongoing movement for change. Among the changes we should seek is removing essential resources, such as oilfields and aquifers, major media and financial institutions, from private ownership. Because the folks who control those things will control everything else.

By: wigwam

wigwam — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:53:55 +0000

So far as my capitalist free-market friends are concerned, there are signed paper contract and laws, and absolutely nothing else, i.e., no unwritten, implicit contracts. There may be things that employers do that please employees and that employees come to expect, but the employers do those things for one and only one reason, i.e., to maximize profits. Once those amenities no longer accrue to the shareholders benefit, it is the fiduciary responsibility of management to terminate them. That is their view, not mine.

By: wobblybits

wobblybits — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:50:50 +0000

Let’s hope that it isn’t true. But even one death is one too many

By: wobblybits

wobblybits — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:50:13 +0000

GALVESTON - Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas on Monday ordered all city employees not to talk to news reporters. She did not say when that order would be lifted.

This jumped out as well. WTF?