I have been thinking that capital or even capitalism are wrongly blamed for the abuse of the impoverished. Capital is the result of asset accumulation and preservation for future use, rather than being allowed to go to waste.
One man’s preservation is not responsible for another’s deprivation, much as one man’s rights are not the result of another’s prohibitions. Binary thinking is just not consistent with reality.
So, what is the cause of the deprivation we know as poverty? How does the lack of money (an unlimited resource) come to affect so many? The answer has actually long been recognized as usury. Usury used to be widely identified as immoral and unjust and then, like the slave trade, it was compromised–re-designated as interest, it was legitimized. (Compromise that involves someone else’s lives is always wrong).
Perhaps it is an opportune time to restart a conversation about usury now that the “official” interest rate is near zero. Using the infinite money supply to manipulate trade and exchange is inherently immoral because somebody’s selfish interest has to be relied on. Neither legislators nor bankers (stewards) should be counted on to set policy.
Currency is meant to circulate. So, if bankers are tasked with insuring equitable circulation, then the legislator’s job is to see that bankers are doing their job.