1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16401/capitalism-at-the-farm-stand/

Capitalism at the Farm Stand

April 7, 2011 by

They think they are doing battle with capitalism and corporate greed; I say it is a pure and beautiful example of a market exchange. FULL ARTICLE by Stefano R. Mugnaini


augusto April 7, 2011 at 8:45 am

To some extent, it costs less to buy from a CSA because they do not pay taxes. Now, tell them that Walmart shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes, and they’ll cry about the unfairness of it. After all, Walmart’s a big operation, and they’re small-scale farmers just trying to make a living…

Stefano April 7, 2011 at 9:19 am


That may be accurate in some cases, but not this one. They have a full blown market and cafe, and you pay sales taxes on things you buy there. The farm is located on one of the sea islands in a rather high rent area so their property taxes are pretty high as well.

I don’t know what the legal or corporate status of the farm it, but I am fairly confident the government gets their pound of flesh. They’re not big enough to line up to subsidy trough, though. The cost savings are mostly the result of the elimination of middlemen.

Thanks for reading!

Jack April 7, 2011 at 11:18 am

Haha, this is so funny. The other day I was trying to explain to this leftist artist I know on FaceBook that she was a capitalist. I was telling her that she provided a product that the public wanted and that she and her customers voluntarily come together to make a mutually beneficial transactions. She wouldn’t hear of it though…there was no way she could be lumped in with those greedy corporations!

I just smile every time she posts about some new sale or product she’s offering.

Andrew April 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Seems like this is analogous to a futures market more than anything else. Reminds me of the reason the futures markets were born…to hedge today against tomorrow’s uncertainty. Expand it from 15 weeks to 52 weeks and you’ve got a bona fide future’s market. And if you can sell your rights to the food quarterly… you’ve just made a whole new currency market as well (watch out…big sis might come after you then!).

I’m not a fan of organic because of the quality problems that I’ve read about and because organic has more health risks and, ultimately, hurts the poorest people in the world because it drives up their costs… but more power to you if you can find satisfaction from the membership on top of the savings you get from the ‘evil corporations.’

Lastly…I like rich people…they’re willing to pay a premium, ultimately making goods cheaper, so I can afford them. Rich people FTW!

Scarcity April 7, 2011 at 1:39 pm

And the “rich people” you idolize are all beneficiaries of government intervention. Show me one “rich person” who got that way because of any market function. Warren Buffett? Can you say corporate welfare? You might as well mail “your” taxes to his house. He (like all the other super rich) wants higher taxes so he can steal more of your money. Bill Gates? Nope, sorry again. Government (i.e. gun) backed monopoly.

Anthony April 7, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Why are you so angry? Read Andrew’s post again and see whether he was “idolizing” rich people.

Scarcity April 8, 2011 at 1:31 am

“Lastly…I like rich people…they’re willing to pay a premium, ultimately making goods cheaper, so I can afford them. Rich people FTW!”

Stefano April 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Futures market might actually be a better analogy. My thinking in terms of dividends or mineral rights is that there is sort of a baseline expectation.

As to “organics,” there are so many variables involved in that discussion, but as a general rule I try to buy local produce and if it is organically grown, all the better. The danger lies in imported organics, because the use of human waste as fertilizer is an accepted practice in some countries (China, eg).

No one ever got sick from buying local produce-It’s always large agribusiness outfits that put salmonella in their spinach.

In my own garden, I use my own composted chicken manure and horse manure from a friend’s farm, and I can say that my yields are roughly as good and my vegetables do taste better than those grown with lots of chemical fertilizers.

One more point-My chickens are illegal. Take that, State!

Mike in MI April 8, 2011 at 5:22 am

“One more point-My chickens are illegal. Take that, State!”

Our city allows four hens, no roosters, and no slaughtering. I’m only planning on following one of those rules (the rooster, since we won’t be hatching) on purpose, and maybe another accidentally. We got six chicks, if some turn out to be male, we’ll slaughter, if not, we’ll have a couple above the limit. Take that, State!

RWW April 7, 2011 at 1:29 pm

What we have here is a case of two people using the word “capitalism” for two entirely different concepts. An Austrian being amused at leftists engaging in commerce because commerce is “capitalism” is like a leftist being amused at Austrians opposed to eminent domain because eminent domain is “capitalism.”

Scarcity April 7, 2011 at 1:49 pm

And how do you know the government is not the legitimate owner? In a free market a person can own land and set up something exactly like the current government if they want to (your liege is sovereign over the land you rent, you have to pay your annual tribute to your liege, your liege can take back his land whenever he wants, you have to submit yourself to military enslavement in defense of your liege, you may not be the vassal of another liege, etc.). And if you don’t like those terms then you don’t have to live there. Even if this person owns all the land in the world and you have no “choice” but to live on his land. But you never thought about that did you. But yeah, the current government is an example of feudalism.

El Tonno April 7, 2011 at 5:21 pm

“And how do you know the government is not the legitimate owner?”

There is some Indian dude on the phone for you.

Scarcity April 7, 2011 at 6:15 pm

And the Indians stole it all from Cave Men (and their fellow Indians). All land is stolen. The first humans homesteaded the entire planet. Everybody is descended from the first humans.

tkwelge April 8, 2011 at 12:27 am

The first humans couldn’t have homesteaded the entire planet… You can only homestead what you are directly utilizing within reason.

Inquisitor April 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

Of course, some idiot is free to set up a slave contract with a landowner. On the other hand, no court is bound to enforce it either should you wish to exit from it.

Now, how do you arrive from that scenario, to one where the present government legitimately arose when its purpose was to protect already existing, homesteaded (by others) land? Moreover, how do you justify its claims over vast swathes of untouched territory it has nothing but verbal claim over? You’re essentially making up a slave contract. Question is, what is to stop one from exiting the contract, i.e. what makes it extend into infinity and apply to individuals who never consented to it, or to stop a court from merely refusing to enforce it? What in the hell privileges the government with the status of permanent – for all eternity – status of service provider of law and order? Nothing, really.

Scarcity April 7, 2011 at 9:52 pm

A landowner proclaims himself By the Grace of God His Majesty the King. His Majesty is supreme sovereign over His lands. His Majesty has created a line of succession for inheritance of His lands. You have no choice but to live by His Majesty’s rules since He is the rightful owner. If you never “consented” to His terms then you are trespassing on His lands.

tkwelge April 8, 2011 at 12:29 am

His Majesty the King derives his power from the consent of the governed. People might refuse to obey some random guy…

Scarcity April 8, 2011 at 1:24 am

No, His Majesty derives His power by being the legitimate owner of His property. His Majesty can do whatever He wants on His lands. People who refuse to obey His laws have no right to trespass on His lands. His Majesty has the right to use force to remove trespassers from His lands.

Scarcity April 7, 2011 at 10:13 pm

“Moreover, how do you justify its claims over vast swathes of untouched territory it has nothing but verbal claim over?”

The same way you or anyone else would justify it. You continuously occupy every square inch of your lands simultaneously? How can you own more than a couple square feet of land then?

tkwelge April 8, 2011 at 12:31 am

Well, you also have to include the land that the person has put value into. You don’t have to occupy every square inch of your land in order to put value into it. Ownership is not based on occupation but investment of time and resources.

You seem really angry and confused…

Scarcity April 8, 2011 at 1:21 am

“Ownership is not based on occupation but investment of time and resources.”

How do you invest time and resources in something that is not already yours?

RWW April 8, 2011 at 10:15 am

Well, you also have to include the land that the person has put value into.

Since value is completely subjective, this is a nonsensical criterion for ownership.

Dr G April 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm

You’re actually buying a modified “futures” contract, a derivative, and taking delivery of the underlying. Do they realize they are dealing in derivatives? Aren’t you/they afraid of collapsing the entire economic system?

El Tonno April 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm

Derivatives don’t collapse economic systems, dawg.

Stefano April 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm

I think that was a joke.

Sarah Hall April 7, 2011 at 4:10 pm

And all this time I thought you were buying corn and tomatoes!!!

Rach April 7, 2011 at 11:39 pm

I believe every economic system can be good and nonexploitative. Capitalism is not bad because people exchange goods for money, which they may have received by providing a product or service for someone else. Capitalism has become bad because too many people are receiving a disproportional amount of profit without any exchange. Return on investments are too high, too many managers take too much profit from the people who actually produce or provide a service. CSAs have no shareholders per se, and no investors, except those who are receiving the fruits of labor(literally the fruits, vegetables and other foods)

tkwelge April 8, 2011 at 12:34 am

So… inequality equals exploitation, whereas two equals exchanging something can never be exploitation no matter what?

You also throw in a lot of emotional claims that cannot be supported via evidence or argumentation. WHat amounts to “too much” profit, for example? Who’s to say that a manager shouldn’t receive more money? It was innovations in management that largely contributed to the industrial revolution.

Rach April 8, 2011 at 1:00 am

“two equals exchanging something can never be exploitation no matter what?”
Never said that, never implied that. Of all the CSAs I know of none have that inclination, not to say that none have or will.

“WHat amounts to “too much” profit, for example?”
When the worker does not receive enough compensation for decent food, shelter and healthcare, and management and investors get so much they can wipe their rears with it.

Glim April 8, 2011 at 2:29 am

What is enough? What is decent food, shelter and healthcare? How much exactly is it?
There is no objective measure of this.

Rach April 8, 2011 at 2:45 am

If you do not understand what decent food, shelter and healthcare are just ask the worker who is not being paid enough to have it.

Real life is never about objective measures, get out of your elitist tower and spend some time with the impoverished. You’ll feel it.

Integral April 8, 2011 at 8:19 am

In the situation you’ve suggested, in a case where a factory whose factoryworkers make car-tires, and the owner or manager makes 5 dollars an hour, and there exists no cars so the factory has no customers, so it has no income, so it can’t pay it’s workers anything because they can’t produce anything because noone is buying anything, the owner or manager is exploiting his workers by making a “too much profit” of 5 dollars an hour… (You can wipe your backside with a 5 dollar bill, right?)

Stefano April 8, 2011 at 8:42 am

Who gets to decide what’s “decent?” The people who want something better, those whom you see as impoverished? Those who already have “too much?” Perhaps some wise, benevolent agent of the government perhaps?

The only way you can guarantee that everyone has “decent” food, shelter, big screen tvs, a proper collection of collectible ninja swords, or whatever else you may decide to turn into a right is through coercion and theft. That’s the problem with your argument. When forcible theft of ends is allowed, everyone suffers, morally and materially.

I spend quite a bit of time serving and giving to the “impoverished” and my conclusion is the same. Free exchange works, central planning destroys all it touches. Virtually no one is “impoverished,” by the way. That very word implies that they are made that way, by some evil capitalist, no doubt. The vast majority of folks have made a series of life choices that have led to a situation with which they are unhappy. They have chosen poverty, albeit indirectly.

Rach, you should put down “The Audacity of Hope” and read “The Road to Serfdom.”

Dave Albin April 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm

The problem is not with income, it’s that goods and services cost more and more. Thank government regulations that discourage competition (and job creation), and monetary and banking policies that encourage inflation. We’re all slowly getting poorer…

Rach April 8, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Integral: The capitalist is stupider than I thought if (s)he is going to manufacture a product(tires) that have no market – and if no income where are you proposing that $5/hour to the owner/management comes from? His(her) daddy?

Stefano: “Who gets to decide what’s “decent?”
A negotiation between the workers and management will come to an agreement when they all meet in good faith. Are all managers/owners unethical? I thought the USA was 80% christian? Any morality there?

Never read the Audacity of Hope, don’t expect to. Never read the Road to Serfdom, but I am against government interference(control) in the relationship between workers and owners.

Dave Albin: “The problem is not with income, it’s that goods and services cost more and more.”
The problem is the inequity of wealth. If more money is put into the hands of the middle and lower classes, they will be able to afford the goods and services they create AND pay taxes.

Never read the Audacity of Hope, don’t expect to. Never read the Road to Serfdom, but I am against government interference(control) in the relationship between workers and owners.

“We’re all slowly getting poorer…”
Not all of “us”. Unless of course you are talking about the excessive use and depletion of resources to satiate the demands of the upper/middle class.

Dave Albin April 8, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Most of us are getting poorer for reasons in my original post………

Rach April 8, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Stefano: “The vast majority of folks have made a series of life choices that have led to a situation with which they are unhappy. They have chosen poverty, albeit indirectly.”
First of all, many in poverty are not as unhappy as you might think, as long as they have the resources for decent food, shelter and healthcare. They are not necessarily tortured by thoughts of inadequacy because they don’t have the latest Ipad or whatever gets you these days. It’s hard, though, with all the psychological manipulations of the marketeers. And what did your school/neighborhood look like? It’s a rare person who can overcome a poverty upbringing and kudos to you if you are. Where’s the choice?

Stefano April 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm

I would with trepidation starts flinging the phrase ‘stupid capitalist’ about. Glass houses and all.

Your whole contention is that poor people don’t have decent housing, etc; therefore, by your “reasoning,” they must all be miserable.

If you want to force “marketeers” or “the wealthy” to behave a certain way, you need to identify who is going to force them to. If you are against government interventions, then who is it that is going to enforce your purely subjective appeals to bring investment returns to “more acceptable” levels or raise wages to the level of what you think is decent?

If I own a company, and you want a job, you can work for what I’m offering to pay or find something else to do. This “good faith negotiation” line is complete nonsense. An employee doesn’t become valuable by being able to sit down and negotiate for more money; they become valuable by doing their job. It is moral to show up and do your job, and receive the wage which has been promised you. If a factory owner can’t find someone to work for what he offers, then he will have to raise wages. Negotiation happens by finding a better offer, not pouting because the offer you’ve got isn’t good enough.

Where’s the choice? Life consists of nothing but choices. You choose to learn or not, to work hard or not, to seek employment or not. You choose whether to seek opportunities or sit at home and wait for the gov’t checks to arrive. That people may live in a community that discourages proper choices has no bearing on their responsibility to make proper ones.

And we are all becoming poorer because of currency devaluation and inflation. That holds whether you hold 1 dollar or 1 trillion.

Rach April 8, 2011 at 8:03 pm

“I would with trepidation starts flinging the phrase ‘stupid capitalist’ about.”
In Intregal’s scenario, what would you call the owner/operator of a business making a product he says society doesn’t need? Unless he’s doing it to induce a bailout from the taxpayers, it won’t be profitable. That’s a “smart” capitalist? Look at everything I’ve written, I’ve never said capitalism is inherently wrong or bad or stupid, just as it is currently implemented is.

“who is it that is going to enforce your purely subjective appeals”?
I already talked about that – good faith negotiations, fueled by the education of the workers that will organize and refuse to work for anyone who will not pay decent wages. It is immoral to expect anyone to work for less than a living wage, besides being stupid: Why would you pay your consumers so little that they cannot afford your products/services?

“If a factory owner can’t find someone to work for what he offers, then he will have to raise wages.”
Exactly my point.

“Life consists of nothing but choices.”
You seem to be naive about the psychology of anyone who isn’t you. This is from the us vs. you(middle class vs. lower class) perpetuated by the wealthy to distract you from the reality that they(the wealthy) are exploiting the hell out of all the other classes – you included. Not to mention education is a key to choices, and children have no choice what school they will go to, and it is directly related to the wealth of the county they live in.

sweatervest April 8, 2011 at 8:34 pm

“good faith negotiations”

This is another subjective term. What qualifies as “good faith”? Who decides whether or not a certain transaction was in “good faith”. Proposing that the worker (or the employer) should decide is pretty silly. If you grant me that ability as a worker, I’ll just call it bad faith until I’m paid $1000 an hour to twiddle my thumbs.

“fueled by the education”

Who performs this education? Who ensures that it is in fact education and not deception? Who compels the workers to complete this education?

“that will organize and refuse to work for anyone who will not pay decent wages”

You mean a labor union? This organization is pointless when it’s not backed by government force. This is inherently coercive, attempting to force employers into a corner so that they must hire at a wage demanded by organized workers. Where is the justice in that? Fortunately, this holds no water in a free market, since the employer can just hire workers who do not choose to join this organization. Striking for a higher wage is pouting for an offer you didn’t receive instead of looking for a better offer.

“It is immoral to expect anyone to work for less than a living wage”

It’s immoral to let people make their own decisions!? No, this is ridiculous. What you are claiming is “immoral” is that someone isn’t busting in and forcing the employer to pay an employee a higher wage. I find it hard to take seriously the claim that refraining from coercion is immoral.

“Why would you pay your consumers so little that they cannot afford your products/services?”

Indeed. It makes me wonder why you’re even talking about any of this!

“This is from the us vs. you(middle class vs. lower class) perpetuated by the wealthy to distract you from the reality that they(the wealthy) are exploiting the hell out of all the other classes – you included”

This is an ad hominem fallacy. The truthfulness of a statement has nothing to do with who said it, and suggesting that someone’s statement is invalid because of that person’s income is absurd. Maybe he is distracted, but you have hardly proven your case by simply suggesting it as a possibility.

Life certainly consists of nothing but choices.

“and children have no choice what school they will go to”

You haven’t been duped into thinking that schools have anything to do with education, have you?

Stefano April 8, 2011 at 10:49 pm


To summarize; You want “fair wages” enforced by “good faith negotiations” and guarantees to “a good education” because none of us have any choices in life.

And you engage in a healthy dose of class warfare, mixed in with allegations that anyone who rejects the arbitrary re-definition of “wants” as “rights” is, in fact, a tool of the wealthy engaged in class warfare.

Practice yelling; You could be the token Democrat on a Fox News show!
On a serious note, I think everyone here believes in good pay, decent housing, and access to education. And everyone wants that for themselves and others, but desiring and guaranteeing are two different matters. To guarantee those things means coercion and government wealth confiscation.

But the heart of libertarian, Austrian, and, from my perspective, Christian, thought is that these things are best attained by individuals working for their needs and with one another on the basis of free will, not coercion. I think you are attempting some syncretism of libertarian thought and FDR style New Deal ideas and calling it a psychology (philosophy) that we should respect. But such syncretism is not logically possible.

I do wish you would read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” and “Human Action” by von Mises.
enJoyable discussion

Kavius April 8, 2011 at 6:22 am

I have been discussing these issues with several people who are looking to operate market gardens. The more I speak with this group, the more I’ve come to realize that they aren’t opposed to “capitalism”, but are opposed to “crony-ism”. They like the idea of small entrepreneurs, but object to giant corporations; the biggest differentiation being the use of unfair competitive practices (government lobbying and the resulting legislation).

Unfortunately, I have yet to meet anyone who understands where they stand on the matter; as the article states, they are “muddled” in their thinking. In their mind, crony-ism is synonymous with capitalism. This confusion leads to all kinds of excuses and exceptions and in the end continued confused thinking; all of the exceptions means that people don’t know where they actually stand, where to actually draw the line.

What I find most frustrating is that the word “profit” is forbidden. Every time one of them starts to talk about the fact that they are going to sell food, they justify it with the statement that they are are going to “make just enough”; not a “real profit”. Sometimes I think that if I could just break that nut, I could get some consistent thought from people around here.

Then again, I may be dreaming. Every one of them is working hard to get government subsidy, or is at least vocal that we need more of it. I’d settle for less “help” from the local governments… they seem to be helping me to death.

Stefano April 8, 2011 at 8:50 am


I have had a similar experience here. They are opening a Co-Op grocery here in town, which operates similarly to the CSA but year round and your share purchase just entitles you to a hefty discount; but they insist on trying to secure Federal and Local government assistance to set up and operate.

Incidentally, that was the point of my article; Even those who see themselves as opponents of capitalism, whether because of ignorance or ideology, benefit from capitalist exchange.

Kavius April 8, 2011 at 5:09 pm

I used to work for a local co-operative grocery store (IT Department), we payed dividends out of the profits as well as the discount at the till. I don’t think the idea of Co-operatives is a bad one, the idea was introduced at a time that people would not have stood for a loss of independence.

Co-operatives are fascinating organizations from a historic perspective. Co-operatives are required by the “seven cooperative principles” to co-operate with one another. In Western Canada, this has resulted in most co-ops being amalgamated under a single parent corporation/sole-supplier. The parent corporation was founded along with a federal political party (in the 1920s?) with the intent of a co-operative arrangement between the two, and never cut ties. Dividends that should be going to Shareholders are instead diverted to the parent company/sole-supplier (by way of overpriced produce and dividends), which in turn funnels funds to a federal political party (by way of dividends and reduced-cost services)… and turns managers into politicians.

So there you have it… the social justice friendly group engaging in crony capitalism and back-room politics; while the “dirty” national corporate chain offers lower prices for poor families, better produce for children, and higher wages to employees.

Freedom Fighter April 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm

Those people don’t understand that capitalism is a means, not an end.

When they use capitalism to promote their environmentalism or solidarity towards local grower, they think it is not capitalism because something good outcomes from their behavior.

Well it’s capitalism nonetheless. Charity is capitalism. Even fairtrade coffee is capitalism. People voluntarily choose to pay a premium for the coffee just to enrich the coffee grower a bit more and feel good about themselves. They did so voluntarily. It is capitalism even if it looks like leftism because they call it fairtrade.

Capitalism doesn’t always have to be about maximizing profits at the expense of everything else. For some people, feeling good about themselves is more valuable than getting the most for the least, so they voluntarily pay a premium for products and services that embed a charitable dimension.

It’s capitalism nonetheless and only in capitalism is this possible. Under a communist system where people would be allocated rations etc, they could only eat their own rations and could not pose any charitable actions with it.

Capitalism is only a means, what you do with it is up to you.

Mortomes April 13, 2011 at 4:04 am

If feeling good about yourself is more valuable to you than X dollars of profit, clearly you are profiting more by donating to charity. You just “cash in” your profits in terms of good-feeling rather than in terms of dollars.

Kavius April 15, 2011 at 3:58 pm

“Capitalism is only a means, what you do with it is up to you”

I like that.

Ross April 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm

>>>Capitalism is only a means, what you do with it is up to you.

Excellent point…. sure wish more people would simplify their positions like that :-)

Justin Bock June 28, 2011 at 10:38 am

You know, I think the myth is that intelligent liberals are not pro-capitalism. I am blessed to have no aversion to words, so capitalism and free exchange is great. But when it comes to food, the myth is that the current food system is free or a form of real capitalism. Government and large corporations have used our tax dollars to create this giant food industry that is making us sick. This should be a libertarian issue. The sad thing is that so many “libertarians” have become shills for large corporations… defending the corporation as a natural growth of freedom… but it isnt and it never will be. The corporation is just the newest great power in history and we are their serfs… Giggle about that smart guy!

Jay Brown September 23, 2011 at 12:20 am

I have to admit to a bit of a chuckle reading this post. The author has it completely backwards or truly does not understand the liberal position. Liberalism supports small business over large corporations. CSA is the polar opposite of the industrial food chain, therefor it is directly in line with the beliefs of liberalism.

I understand that conservatives brand liberals as “socialists” and, given their unique view of the world, it almost makes a bit of sense. However, it by no means can survive the harsh light of inspection or critical thought.

Here are the facts:

1) The vast majority of liberals are not true socialists.

In true socialism all contribute to society according to their capability and receive back from society according to their needs. Most liberals do not decry higher wages for more skilled jobs. However they do believe that with great wealth comes great responsibility, which is also the mantra of the philanthropic.

2) Liberalism is not anti-capitalism,

Liberals are charged as being anti-capitalism because they support regulation and regulation is often seen as stifling capitalism. Liberals see it more as attempting to ensure that corporations play fair and with honor. It doesn’t really take much research to realize that liberals are correct. Just consider a few of the positive results of regulation:

1) Child-labor laws.
2) Workplace safety laws.
3) Lead-free gasoline.
4) Increased automotive safety.

Then consider the results of removing or limiting regulation:

1) Decreasing product quality.
2) The sub-prime mortgage crisis.
3) Greater corporate control over media.
4) Increased job loss.

The vast majority of liberals do not agree with complete regulation. They do agree that companies should be able to offer the product they choose to offer at the price at which they think that it should be offered but there should be acceptable limitations on how companies conduct business fairly. At the end of the day, if the business world expects to maintain that corporations qualify as citizens, providing corporations with the ability to own capital, they should also then be held to the same standards of decorum.

One can hardly claim that a company that collects your money and ships it oversees to suppliers or workers positively affects our economy and thus the ability for us all to gain wealth.

Collusion between government agencies and biotechnology companies should be as scandalous as the infidelity of a law-maker.

How can one claim that there is no good argument for establishing a minimum wage when it behooves corporations to pay their most common worker designation the lowest wage? When one company can open a store in a town and decrease the overall earnings potential per capita we should by all means protect our citizens.

We are not against capitalism. We are *for* responsible capitalism. CSAs represent responsible capitalism.

Besides, doesn’t my reusable hemp grocery bag look cool?


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: