The need to directly tie the needs of the consumer to the economy's process

I wonder why no mention is being made of the need to directly tie the needs of the consumer, and more generally all American people, to the economy's process. The articles just are looking at dollar signs. The ethical principle of setting price increase to no more than the value that was added, in contrast to the gambler's "charge what the market will bear;" as well as doing no hoarding cornering the market so as to demand high prices for the same old thing - but now artificially made scarce - to demand ransom pay from those who actually need the items that were hoarded just to rip-off the actual users. Those were some cherished foundations of stock market (e.g. the soybeans hallowed story) schemes much too often; and not often enough only based on providing needs in the marketplace.

It seems almost like the real powers-that-be are just waiting until the existing cars start wearing out and the existing homes are no longer enough to provide housing, and the laid off workers are humbly allowed to beg to come back to work at much lower pay and benefits, all the more profits to the owners and investors who only see dollar signs and care nothing for the actual products nor consumer.

Also I keep coming back to the question: since money does not cease to exist, where did it go ... and why are people shunning that question? Apparently there are trillions of dollars suddenly missing and no one is asking who has got it all.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home