Over
here, on the Mudflats blog, our sturdy Alaskan blogger opens up a discussion of the reality of the Alaskan winter, and the practicalities of life for a good number of outlying rural Alaskan natives. For those of you with click-o-phobia, she points out that the logistics of delivering heating oil to a lot of these folks involves the equivalent
(
Read more... )
(The comment has been removed)
As for the creation of wealth--I think that it would do us well to be a tad more spiritually socialistic as well. I think of Jesus feeding the 5000. I mean, technically, that little boy could be commended on all he did, as a good little Capitalist. He thought ahead enough to bake those five loaves. He caught his two fish. He packed the whole thing up nicely, to make sure that he had his. All delightful capitalistic ideals. But then Jesus said that he had to share. Give me those fruits of your labor, and give me that evidence of your responsibility, and share what you have. He didn't even offer to leave one loaf for the boy! He took it all! And in his hands, the loaves and fishes became a bounty, and fed the whole multitude, with seven baskets left over ( ... )
Reply
I can't eat paper money, nor electrons.
Reply
Spiritually speaking, I believe that money is a physical manifestation of energy--the trading of money is indicative and representative of the movement of energy. Work produces goods, goods produce purchases, purchases promote a healthy economy, a healthy economy produces more working people, more goods, more purchases and more health. It's the way wealth grows--perhaps the only way it grows, and it's a cycling process that reflects the movement of energy through nature. Ideally, this is the way that Capitalism would work--until people start hanging onto the energy through greed. And when that happens long enough, ultimately the circuit overloads and all the lights blow out ( ... )
Reply
He is benefitting from what is a completely socialistic system.
Just because he's sharing in the wealth of his family doesn't mean that he isn't benefitting from a system where the wealth is shared. And shame on him for purposely limiting the population from which he takes, rather than taking from a larger group that could more painlessly address his need.
Sharing the wealth is sharing the wealth--it seems that, in his case, he's prepared to demand a piece only from those who are the least able to give it.
Reply
Leave a comment