The issues of price and morality.

Is there such a thing called 'just price'?  A pricing level that has a moral dimension, which does not include excessive profiteering.  Long ago in the 13th century, that's what philosophers thought when religion was so prevalent in the local culture.  The elements of Christianity and 'sin' went beyond what was obvious which is politics to a more hidden dimension - economics.  A 'just' price should include some form of profit that should not be excessive because avarice is considered a sin.

A very interesting take indeed.

One could almost see how religion was treated as a true cornerstone of the society especially to settle the dispute of different opinions.  The common ideology was that if we can't decide which one of us is right, then let religion decide what is the common good for mankind.

Pros and cons.  While I understand the noble intention of religion but in reality, it's much more complicated than that.  Some economists believe that the society itself will determine the 'just' price.  If the price level was too high, people will automatically stop buying thus forcing it to come down.  So if left to society's own antics and decision, even the participants of economies follow the principle of Darwin - the survival of the fittest, which in this case - is the survival of the richest.  Because once the price level is set, anyone who falls below that 'affordability' level will not be able to enjoy the product and/or service.

Something to really consider when setting the price for 'common good' products no?  Think medication, think eco-solutions, think education, think health care, think water, think electricity.  Only if you come from X level of income background would you then be able to enjoy basic necessities, better education and health services and even to a certain extent, eco solutions.

No right, no wrong.  But a very interesting perspective.  Thoughts?

Why you should never mash religion with politics and finance.

I spent two hours watching Zeitgeist: The Movie today.  I've always been sceptical with edited films - bits and pieces of information edited by someone with a strong point-of-view.  Given the same footages, through the hands of someone with a totally different perspective, tells a different story.  The uncanny skills you pick up from being in advertising.

Anyway, I still hold scepticism although yes, it seems like it makes a lot of sense.  At the end of the day, who knows what the truth is?  We all like to believe, we'll finally find it when we die.  Or when this age dies.  Well, until then, what can we do except to live responsibly as a human being?  And be accountable to one another?

One major take-out that I have to thank film director and social activist, Peter Joseph is this: NEVER ever mix religion with politics with financial goals.  These are important pillars in building a society, or a nation as a matter of fact, or any organisation for that matter.  But when you mix them together, you get pure potent evil.  Money controls government controls what the people should believe in.  Then it's a downward spiral of mass destruction for everyone.  Even those who are 'in control' because one thing we can be sure of is, there's no such thing as immortality.

If you think this only happens in America, you're wrong.  It's everywhere.  In your own country, and perhaps even your own organisation.  Since I'm in no governmental position, I should only make brand-related inference.  Brand philosophy should always stand alone, uninterrupted by the financial guys, undeterred by operations.  Yes, it's a fine line especially between operations and finance but they should always be governed and treated separately.  Each its own entity, for fear one takes over the other.  When you start losing control of these three pillars, you lose three wonderful visions.  You only get one.  And that's the one driven by money.