“In all earlier civilizations, it should be remembered, commerce was treated as a narrow activity and by no means the senior sector in society.”

Source: A Theory of Justice (1971; 1975; 1999), Chapter II, Section 12, pg. 73

Source: "From Enlightenment to Revolution" (1975), p. 139
Context: The criterion of integral sanity [for Littré] is the acceptance of Positivism in its first stage. The criteria of decadence or decline are (1) a faith in transcendental reality, whether it expresses itself in the Christian form or in that of a substitute religion, (2) the assumption that all human faculties have a legitimate urge for public expression in a civilization, and (3) the assumption that love can be a legitimate guiding principle of action, taking precedence before reason. This diagnosis of mental deficiency is of an importance which can hardly be exaggerated. It is not the isolated diagnosis of Littré; it is rather the typical attitude toward the values of Western civilization which has continued among "intellectual positivists" from the time of Mill and Littré down to the neo-Positivistic schools of the Viennese type. Moreover, it has not remained confined to the schools but has found popular acceptance to such a degree that this variant of Positivism is today one of the most important mass movements. It is impossible to understand the graveness of the Western crisis unless we realize that the cultivation of values beyond Littré's formula of civilization as the dominion of man over nature and himself by means of science is considered by broad sectors of Western society to be a kind of mental deficiency.

In a speech on Democratic Development, Pluralism and Civil Society delivered at the Nobel Institute, Oslo, Norway (7 April 2005). http://www.akdn.org/speech/nobel-institute-oslo

January 6, 2004, World Bank Video Series, Amman, Jordan.

Ever since ASCE began issuing its “National Infrastructure Report Card” in 1998, the nation has gotten a dismal grade of D or D+. In the meantime, the estimated cost of fixing its infrastructure has gone up from $1.3 trillion to $4.6 trillion.
While American politicians debate endlessly over how to finance the needed fixes and which ones to implement, the Chinese have managed to fund massive infrastructure projects all across their country, including 12,000 miles of high-speed rail built just in the last decade...
A key difference between China and the US is that the Chinese government owns the majority of its banks... The US government could do that too, without raising taxes, slashing services, cutting pensions, or privatizing industries.... The federal government could set up a bank on a similar model. It has massive revenues, which it could leverage into credit for its own purposes. Since financing is typically about 50 percent of the cost of infrastructure, the government could cut infrastructure costs in half by borrowing from its own bank. Public-private partnerships are a good deal for investors but a bad deal for the public. The federal government can generate its own credit without private financial middlemen. That is how China does it, and we can to.

Ellen Brown: If China Can Fund Infrastructure With Its Own Credit, So Can We https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/18/if-china-can-fund-infrastructure-with-its-own-credit-so-can-we/, CounterPunch (18 May 2017)

Source: Botswana: First Lady Neo Jane Masisi Speech Delivered At the Virtual Launch of the W Summit Diamond Impact Week 2020 https://allafrica.com/stories/202012040594.html (4 December 2020)

Original:…如果立法會最終真係無工商界的代表，工商界可以唔同你玩，全面撤資囉。
Source: 胡 應 湘 ： 爭 拗 至 2047 都 無 普 選 http://www.hkreporter.com/talks/viewthread.php?tid=870295&page=1

Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1996)