I will be up front and admit that I find economics confusing. Wall Street and that whole stock market thing is just a puzzle to me. Sell! Sell! Buy! Buy!
Now, not everything I read about economics puzzles me, just what passes for mainstream economic thought. Some folk make a great deal of sense to me. Wendell Berry, Harlan and Anna Hubbard, Gene Logsdon, Ched Myers... these folk all speak about economics in ways that seems entirely reasonable and common-sense, at least to me.
I'd like to offer a bit of theology and economics in a quote from Ched Myers, who says:
The Hebrew Bible's vision of Sabbath economics contends that a theology of abundant grace and a communal ethic of redistribution is the only way out of our slavery to the debt system, with its theology of meritocracy and private ethic of wealth concentration. The contemporary church, however, has difficulty hearing this as good news since our theological imaginations have long been captive to the market-driven orthodoxies of modern capitalism...
Israel's betrayal of its Sabbath vocation became a central complaint of the prophets. When Isaiah charged the nation's leadership with robbery (Isaiah 3:14-15), he was echoing the manna tradition's censure of stored wealth in the face of community need (see also Isaiah 5:7-8; Malachi 3:5-12). Amos accused the commercial classes of regarding shabat as an obstacle to market profiteering, and of treating the poor as an exploitable class rather than guaranteeing their gleaning rights (Amos 8:5-6; see Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 19:9-10; Micah 7:1).
[Read the complete article here.]
This sort of talk makes sense to me. That's my quote.
My question that I wanted to ask was simply, can someone explain what the Stock Market means to you? All these jitters last week because of China...what does it mean?
47 comments:
I notice that you don't list the famous Eleuthronomics as one of the explanations of economics you understand. And here I was expecting a nomination for a Nobel prize at the least!
The first thing to understand is that the stock market isn't the economy, only an imperfect reflection of it.
If 20 of us jointly owned a large storage shed of potatoes and five of us decided to cash out and sell our quarter of the whole, the rest is likely to retain its value. The price will go up and down some, and in the end we could always take our share of the potatoes home and eat them. They would always retain some significant value.
Not so with the stock market. At one time it meant a share of ownership in the stock of the company: livestock, materials, finished goods etc and as such it was somewhat similar to my above example of potatoes. Holders owned a material part of the company in hopes of thereby turning some modest profit.
Now of days most companies do not have any material stock worth liquidating. Holding stock in the company means only holding the prospect that the company will expand and turn a profit, part of which expansion or profit would be yours and a part owner.
Therefore if a quarter of the people who own stock in such ephemeral companies decide to cash in, the remaining 3/4ths of the stock becomes nearly worthless.
That is, lets say the Trabue Co Inc has issued `10,000 shares of stock at $100 each meaning that the company is technically "worth" a million dollars. If you held ten of those shares and offered them for sale, likely someone will buy them (hoping they will be more valuable in the future) and give you $1000. You can parley ten shares of that stock into a grand worth of food, clothes, gasoline, etc.
A second person could do this too. And maybe a dozen or a score. But if, after your sale of stock, holders of 2500 shares decided that they'd rather have food and gasoline rather than the stock, the price of the stock would drop like a rock. Whereas your 100 shares might have bought, say, 400 gallons of gasoline, now 100 shares cashed out would only by 20.
The point is this, the "value" of the stock doesn't actually exist as a material promise of real goods. The existence of a modern stock depends on a large number of people being warm and content holding onto the promise of transforming their stock into material goods, but not actually doing it.
I think we can learn many good things from the Mosaic government, but I must admit, I am often confused of which aspects we should apply today. After all, should we punish those who worship someone else other than God?
But let's say we want to apply the Mosaic system to our economic system today, at least the same ideals. To me, there are two primary aspects to the economy. 1) The market, how much it is regulated and how much wealth accumulation is possible. And 2) how is this wealth taxed and/or redistributed.
Now, for the sake of argument let's say that it is desirable to use taxes to help out the poor and do some income redistribution. I think one can believe in those things yet still believe in the free market. Even though I'm very economically libertarian, I would rather have higher taxes as opposed to a more regulated economy. In my view, the Mosaic law focuses on helping the poor and transferring some wealth (although not 40%) to the poor, but I don't see (which I could be overlooking) laws which prevent the accumulation of wealth in the first place. Well, maybe some, like limits on land ownership, lending laws, etc... But to me, the free market means two people decide on a price or wage. But what if someone can't afford a basic good like bread, or they aren't worth that much in the job market? I think this is where Area 2 kicks in.
Back to your question, I am all about a stock market where people are free to buy and sell as they choose. Sure, some people will accumulate large amounts of wealth. But I would rather those large amounts of wealth be taxed to help the poor, rather than laws be in place to prevent that wealth from being accumulated in the first place. Does that make sense?
Listening to NPR yesterday, some of the China market woes seemed to baffle the experts, too. There is sometimes (often?) a disconnect between the economics of the stockmarket and what even the economists call the "real" economy.
Sabbath economics focuses entirely on the "real" economy where most of us live.
There are several problems with applying OT economic models to our modern economy.
1) In OT times it was a direct use economy (much as I advocate now of days) rather than a token economy that we have today. For the most part work was done by servants and slaves (the distinction is minor). For their work and commitment to stability (staying in one place) they were assured food, clothes, a place to live, and protection. Laborers and the poor did not go about with silver shekels jingling in their pockets.
2) Loans were frowned upon and interest was viewed as immoral. Because of the direct use economy, this was not a problem for most people. You could perhaps borrow today's or tomorrow's bread, but what meaning would it have to borrow next year's bread?
3) The Jubilee did not "redistribute" wealth, rather it returned wealth to its original owner. Yet another clue that debt and loans were frowned upon. You can bet that if someone was putting up the farm as collateral the year before Jubilee, the creditor would be mighty cautious about it.
4) In OT times, "poor" meant not enough to eat or not enough cloth to cover one's self. Anyone with a hank of bread and a cloak about them was de facto not poor.
5) Holy men, teachers, prophets and the like might be regaled with a hank of bread, pair of sandals, maybe even a flagon of wine, but that was all. To expect to be paid cash or chattel for theologizing would have been a scandal.
If the principles of OT economics are going to be applied to today's world, we must first adopt OT standards of what wealth is and what people are expected to do in order to dip their morsel in the common dish.
Also to adopt OT economics, you would have to adopt the OT government style, which was a Theocratic.
"There is sometimes (often?) a disconnect between the economics of the stockmarket and what even the economists call the "real" economy.
Sabbath economics focuses entirely on the "real" economy where most of us live."
Maybe, but in my view, the stock market is fairly accessible to the common man. More and more of the working class are getting 401K or similar retirement accounts. I'm not currently a big participator, but I do like the fact that company profits are not just limited to the higher-ups at the company, but anyone who has some extra cash.
E said:
"I notice that you don't list the famous Eleuthronomics as one of the explanations of economics you understand."
I thought that went without saying...
Larry said:
"Also to adopt OT economics, you would have to adopt the OT government style, which was a Theocratic."
Only part of the time. For the largest part of the OT, Israel was a monarchy.
Chance said:
"but I do like the fact that company profits are not just limited to the higher-ups at the company, but anyone who has some extra cash."
This is the sort of economics that doesn't make sense to me. "Profits" of what? Anytime anyone ever tries to explain the stock market to me, it always sounds like either sorcery, religion or a ponzi scheme.
How Eleutheros explains the market makes sense to me (but he's rather antagonistic towards it, I'd suggest), but getting money for nothing doesn't.
I reckon that might be one way where I'm doing that random acceptance of biblical literality - the Bible says not to charge interest and that makes sense to me. Charging interest doesn't.
Actually, Dan, even with the monarchy system, Israel was still a Theocratic government. God was still the head of the nation.
Well, the monarchs may have said that they were following God, but more often than not, they weren't. In fact, the prophets were continually getting on to the kings for ignoring God on matters of economics.
There were supposed to be rules in place to make sure wealth didn't wind up in the hands of a few. There were supposed to be rules in place to make sure the earth wasn't exploited. There were supposed to be rules in place to tend to the needs of the foreigners and poor.
Again, THIS sort of economics I can understand, it makes sense to me - and we need not be a theocracy to implement similar rules. Why would we?
Eleutheros said:
"If the principles of OT economics are going to be applied to today's world, we must first adopt OT standards of what wealth is..."
Quite possibly.
I think part of the problem is that capitalism has become so ingrained into American life that we take it for granted. One of the foundations of capitalist thought is the idea that people are more motivated to act when their actions bring them some personal benefit. The OT prophets might have called that "greed," but in 21st century America it's called a self-evident truth.
Some people try to take advantage of the natural fluctuations of the market, bagging little profits here and there by buying when the stock goes down and reselling when it goes up. Never mind that trying to second-guess the markets like this is not often a successful strategy.
If it weren't part of our society's ingrained wisdom that greed is good, such behavior might not be tolerated. The fact that it is not only tolerated but celebrated shows how thoroughly our society is permeated by greed.
I took the liberty to transcribe some of Wendell Berry's words from a portion of his conversation with Jack Shoemaker and Gary Snyder at http://www.lannan.org/lf/rc/event/wendell-berry/ This starts somewhere shortly after time 22:55. Of course there's much more VERY good stuff.
Here's my attempt to capture some of Wendell's words:
Berry: Where we are it seems to me is in a situation in which we make a fundamental confusion about symbolic value, namely money, and real value and that the connection between the symbols and the goods symbolized has been virtually lost so that people are now; great great numbers of people in power are looking at money as a vital sign, which it is not. The money is doing well and the things that the money is made from in general is doing poorly. The money is being made by robbing the landscapes of the world and the people who work those landscapes. And so the political situation to me, as I see it from where I'm looking, that is a country community, looks like a fairly pure composition of fantasy.
Materialism/Greed is to capitalism as pornography is to free speech, in my opinion.
Capitalists motivated by greed seek their own gain by maximizing profits. The forces of the market place, however, convert this private vice into public virtue.
Thus, living a life based on greed, which appears to be the antithesis of Christian morality, can do quite well in accomplishing the goat set forth above—that is, to better society and benefit our fellow human beings.
~James Doti writing on Adam Smith and capitalism
I think greed has been accepted as an inherent value in capitalism. That somehow, the negative trait of greed is acknowledged and works toward the good in capitalism. Am I mistaken?
Greed is a sin. It's common in capitalists and socialists and whatever else one claims to be. It's even common in poor people. Oh Lord - even the poor people.
So, unless you can judge a person's heart, how can you say a capitalist who maximizes profits is greedy or not.
Dan, Smith's explanation of capitalism troubles me. Greed doesn't work towards the maximum benefit of society, but people who focus on supporting themselves and helping others out do benefit society. I look at the justification of capitalism more in terms of mitigating the harmful effects of greed.
In my view, socialism can encourage just as much greed, although in a different form. I am not saying people holding socialist thought are greedy, but I think socialism can encourage greediness as it allows for people to feel entitled to goods and services from other people without paying what they are worth. After all, why is it greedy for me to want things I work for, yet it is not greed to want things other people work for?
Just to be clear, in pointing out the problems of unfettered capitalism and greed, I'm not saying that I'm endorsing socialism (at least as it was often practiced last century). I'm somewhere in between.
I think unfettered capitalism holds many great evils. Unfettered socialism holds some potential evils as well. I believe in freedom, but not freedom to do whatever I want, even including poisoning others and taking their money.
I believe in sharing, but not sharing at the end of a rifle.
I believe in balance.
Chance said, "Materialism/Greed is to capitalism as pornography is to free speech, in my opinion." This is wrong on both ends. I USED to believe that porn was a type of speech and thus, reluctantly, had to be protected (child porn and snuff films excepted).
I backed the ACLU on this over attempts to make porn illegal. Further study, however, has made me see the error of my ways: Pornograpy is not "speech," not free expression, but is a form of assault, of violence--mostly against women and children. It not only objectivies women's bodies (and sexualizes younger and younger girls--in cooperation with the fashion industry--all under "market forces,") but encourages rape and other forms of sexual assault.
Once it was widely believed, for instance, that peeping toms and flashers were "sick but harmless," but now we know that if flashers expose themselves to children they already cause real harm AND they almost always progress to actual assault. Same with peepers. Pornography is private, anonymous, peeping. Just as prostitution is a form of sexual slavery, so pornography is assault--violence, not speech.
But Chance's statement is wrong at the other end, too. IF porn were a necessary evil to free speech (which I deny), it would not be the essence of free speech, but just trash one has to tolerate and try to avoid. (This is the classic liberal view of porn--as with the ACLU.) But greed and materialism are INTRINSIC to capitalism--as all the major theorists from Adam Smith onward have said--though usually in euphemisms. Smith's "invisible hand," works only with a large number of qualifiers to get an "ideal marketplace," but it also takes everyone pursuing self-interest and not thinking of others or the common good.
This is also the logic behind the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand's endorsement of capitalism and "the virtue of selfishness," (especially in the essay of that name and in her Atlas Shrugged). Rand, in turn, inspired Milton Friedman's demand that "rationale agents" each pursue their own self interest and his constant fears that compassion would lead to interference in the market. The movie Wallstreet's slogan, "Greed is Good," is the just the popularization of laissez faire capitalism's ideology from start to finish.
This is why capitalism (as an ideology--not as a system one is forced to deal with and try to tame as much as possible this side of the Rule of God) is incompatible with Christianity. In fact, it is incompatible with almost all traditional moral systems which consider greed and materialism to be vices and simplicity(the virtue of "enough") and generosity and fair distribution of resources to be virtuous.
This is long enough for this post, so I'll save for later the problem of "Mosaic government."
In my view, greed and envy are just as inherent in socialism as they are capitalism. In a capitalist system, the things I obtain are based on the amount of work I do, what I do, etc... Let's take a more socialist/progressive type system. The things I obtain are based on who I vote for, how high I vote to raise taxes on other people, etc... In both systems people try to attain things, but one is through government power and the other is through business, commerce, etc...
In my view, someone obtaining 3 years paid leave for having a baby is much more selfish than me wanting a big-screen TV.
Concerning porn, I support your opinions and I also find it evil. However, I fear even more the effects of an underground industry on women as opposed to the open one we do have. That being said, I don't think we should have such things on billboards or anywhere else out in public.
The OT prophets would not have called the capitalistic system a sin. But they would have called greed and envy sins.
Proverbs 13:11 Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminshed, but he who gathers by labour will increase.
There is nothing wrong with people working hard to better themselves. And just because they better themselves, does not make it greed.
What silliness to think it does.
"The OT prophets would not have called the capitalistic system a sin."
It would depend upon whether or not the capitalistic system was oppressing the poor and marginalized or not, wouldn't it?
Israel was supposed to have implemented the Jubilee Laws to ensure that wealth didn't accumulate in too few hands and that there was a safety net for the poor and marginalized. Israel often did NOT do so, resulting in unjust economic conditions and suffering of the poor and wealth and power accumulating in a few hands. They were soundly and repeatedly rebuked for this.
Dan,
This is a simple definition for capitalism: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution and and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals and corporations."
The Bible backs this definition 100%. Now, it may not use the term capitalism, but it still means the same.
The prophets proclaimed warnings against sin. Period.
The seven year and fifty year Jubilee laws were set in place not for your mentioned reasons at all. No! No! No! The Jubilee was a law of restoration. It restored land to the original owners. It restored freedom to bondservants.
"The Bible backs this definition 100%."
Larry, it's one thing to suggest that capitalism may not be totally 100% opposed by the Bible, I would agree with that.
But it is another thing to make the claim - as you seem to be doing - that the Bible endorses capitalism. That is the sort of cultural egocentrism that gets us in trouble, when we assume that the Bible is endorsing our way of life because it is the way with which we're familiar and comfortable.
Maybe you're not trying to say that, feel free to correct me.
Biblical times were different than our times. Capitalism as we know it was not practiced, commerce as we know it was not practiced, and certainly the economic rules that God gave them are not the rules that we practice - we're a different culture.
Look again at what I wrote. I said the Bible backs the definition of capitalism that I wrote.
And it does - 100%.
You make a tent, like Paul, or you catch fish, like John, James, Peter and Andrew, and you are paid for it.
Nothing can be more clearer than this. Right?
Chance, greed and materialism can certainly raise their heads in socialism, but the system isn't completely based on greed ("the profit motive") as is capitalism.
For the record, I do not oppose profit. Almost all businesses need to show a profit (and even non-profits and not-for-profit businesses have to avoid losing money on a regular basis). I object to the business model, preached at all business schools and almost all economics departments of the profit MOTIVE as the end all and be all--the "bottom line." This discounts other motives for businesses--such as providing a useful good or service, bettering the common good, etc. It also makes maximizing shareholder profits (with public corporations) override all other considerations.
It doesn't have to be that way: A good friend of mine (and Dan's), a fellow member of our church, has just successfully brought on-line the Mother Ann Lee Hydro-Electric Plant. Their business model is, without losing money, to maximize how much renewable energy they can produce--and how much CO2 they can keep out of the atmosphere. They have worked with the KY Legislature to mandate that if they produce more electricity than needed for their subscribers, other electric companies will have to purchase that electricity and supply it to their parts of the state--instead of only using coal-producing electricity.
Our friend and his business partners do hope to make some money on this venture--so that they can open more hydroelectric plants, but also so they can open up solar farms. They know they will lose money on the solar farms --and are perfectly okay with that as long as they have a revenue stream with the hydroelectric. The model is NOT maximizing profit, but generating energy while reducing global warming.
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammed Yunus of the Grameen Bank has pioneered in the creation of social businesses alongside for-profit businesses. The purpose of social businesses is to reduce/eliminate poverty, clean up the environment, or other help for the common good--without losing money. The Grameen Bank pioneered in micro-loans to the poor with a 90% repayment rate at little or no interest--and has thereby created small businesses with and for the poor all over Bangladesh (and inspired similar movements around the world). This reduces poverty without losing money.
I am a not a state socialist--like so-called "communist" countries. I am a democratic socialist. I favor well-regulated marketplaces. Market forces are very efficient at distributing wealth--without rules and policing however, they are not good as JUST distribution and they inevitably lead to corruption, fraud, and environmental degradation. I am for small businesses--some for profit and some social, but not for a system which focuses solely on maximizing profit. The latter is laissez fair capitalism and it is based on greed as ALL its major theorists agree.
This "capitalism" is not endorsed in Scripture. This kind of capitalism didn't exist before the 17th C. What Scripture supports is limited private property, limited profit (too much is considered usury), and systems to ensure that wealth is regularly redistributed, debts cancelled, and people who failed in the competition get to start over (see the Sabbath Year and Jubilee Year laws in Leviticus). These laws cannot be slavishly imitated in our very different situations--but the spirit, the values, they represent can be taken over and promoted within systems we seek to create.
Ah, to be a democratic socialist. Now there is a term. Sort of like being a little pregnant.
The Bible does not endorse socialism in the least. It endorses free enterprise, which is the basis for capitalism.
The Bible has not problem with profits. Not in the least.
OOps! The last sentence should read:
The Bible has no problem with profits. Not in the least.
I wonder if Larry Who has read anything in the Bible other than Proverbs?
Funny, Michael, that you should say that about me. Because I was just sitting here, thinking that you should burn those commentaries that you are reading. And then, read the Bible.
There's some good stuff in the Good Book.
And oh yes, Job was blameless in God's sight and was unbelievably wealthy. He had a horrible trial and came through it with a new revelation of God.
Guess what God did to Job? He made him rich, sort of like Bill Gates.
If you would like Michael, we could start in Genesis and move through the Bible. I would be more than happy to prove everyone of your socialist theories wrong.
And if you are up to the challenge, we could do it on my blog. Any time. Just let me know.
That could be very productive, indeed, Larry. But not if you ignore all the parts where the Bible warns of profiteering, unjust economic systems, warnings of the trap that is Wealth.
Already, over at your place, you mostly have not responded to the preponderance of passages I've offered up. Jesus warns that wealth is a trap. Jesus says that it is difficult for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said, "Woe to you who are wealthy!"
He didn't say "woe to you who are greedy," right? But woe to you who are wealthy.
If we look at all the verses and passages that talk about wealth, you will not see laissez faire capitalism endorsed, you will see it opposed. Over and over and over and over and over.
I'm not saying the Bible is opposed to private ownership - I think that's a good thing within reason. I don't think the Bible is endorsing state socialism. But let's look at the Bible and see what it has to say.
Why don't you start with Luke 12?
"The Bible does not endorse socialism in the least."
Depends upon how you define socialism. State-ownership of goods and everything else, no, the Bible does not endorse that at all.
But a voluntary sharing of goods? Yes, this is a repeated theme in the Bible. The early church decided to "hold all things in common," (Acts 2 and 4, for starters).
Michael was talking about democratic (ie, decided by the people) socialism, which sounds fairly close to what the early church practiced. Depending upon definitions...I'd have to research an "official" definition for that term, if one exists.
To anyone who is interested, Ched Myers' book, Sabbath Economics is a short booklet - not long at all - that is STUFFED full of biblical references, from Genesis to Revelation, of the Bible on economics. I highly recommend it.
Dan,
A few answers:
1. "Already, over at your place, you mostly have not responded to the preponderance of passages I've offered up..."
1-A. Nor have you answered the scriptures that I have offered.
2. "Why don't you start with Luke 12?"
2-A. In Luke 12:33-34, Jesus said, "Sell your possessions and give to charity...For where your treasure is your heart will be also."
This is not a commandment to sell ALL your possessions and give the money to the poor. Why? Because it does not line up with other verses in the NT or even with the words of Christ.
Now, if you do take it that way, then you also have to look at Luke 12:35-48. In this passage Jesus talks about slaves being blessed. According to your thinking, Jesus endorses slavery.
Which sounds crazy, right? Except during the Civil War, some Christian churches who were in the Southern states did believe this to be true.
Cults and sects are started because scriptures are cherry- picked out of the Bible into whatever they want. Jim Jones did this.
3. "But a voluntary sharing of goods? Yes, this is a repeated theme in the Bible. The early church decided to "hold all things in common," (Acts 2 and 4, for starters)."
3-A. The church is supposed to help the needy and poor. But this special situation (Acts 2 & 4) happened during a Passover time in Jerusalem when more than 100,000 Jews from all over the Roman Empire came to Jerusalem. Supposedly, many of the 3,000 early converts were from out of the area. So, the church gave their money to the Apostles.
It is a leap in logic to assume the Bible endorses democratic socialism from these two examples as the later churches did not do this.
And anyway, the money was given to the apostles, not a government.
Larry, I will take your observation at face value. Thanks. But if I take you up on it, it will have to be awhile. I have several series of posts going on my blog, plus my job, plus looking for a better job that fits my calling more, plus my family, AND I have just agreed to enter another blog's conversation on racism in America. So, one more such task is more than I can handle at the moment. Maybe in a few months, I'll stop by your blog and see if the offer is still open.
I do want to say that your charge of "stop reading commentaries" is one I resent. First, it perpetuates the myth that most biblical commentaries are written by "enemies of the faith" or some such nonsense. They vary greatly in scholarship, perspective, and value, of course, but most are written by dedicated Christians. If the church did not need such, they would have long since ceased publication--but they go back to the early 2nd century.
On the other hand, commentaries are, of course, no substitute for direct study of the Scriptures. Which I read daily in Hebrew, Greek, and English. I can say with confidence that justice for the poor is a major biblical theme from Genesis to Revelation--so much so that to miss it is to be blind, indeed.
Michael, forgive me. My statement about commentaries was more tongue in cheek than anything.
Since we are talking about free enterprise/capitalism economic system versus a democratic/socialistic one, why would you add the last sentence in your comments to me. (ie...the poor
)
Is it because you assume that capitalists like me don't care about the poor? The sounds like judgmentalism to me.
I think one place where the disconnect might be is that, for some of us, we find our economic system (that is, the economic system in which we're a part and which we support) to be failing in matters of justice.
It's not private ownership of stuff that we condemn, but our particular brand of capitalism, in that it consists of "unjust scales" as it is put in the OT. OT "capitalism" (not technically what it was, but let's refer to it thusly for now) was regulated in ways that took in to account the needy, the marginalized, those who did not "make it" (ie, who fell behind on their bills) and the earth.
When the economic system in the OT did NOT do so (which was frequent), the people of God were roundly thrashed for it. Many of us think that our economic systems fail to do these and think it moral and wise to thrash the economy - and perhaps ourselves, to the extent that we're participating in said unjust economy and contributing to the problems.
Larry, it appears you (and perhaps others) do not see this unjust economy. So, perhaps I should try harder to point out where our economy is failing to take into account the poor, the marginalized and the earth.
I don't really know how much more I can point out how our economy is failing the earth -- we've talked here a great deal about how our economy is built NOT upon sustainable practices (as roughly described in the OT - allowing the earth to rest, not OVER-harvesting nor OVER-consuming), but upon unsustainable practices that will lead to collapse short of us "finding" some miracle replacement for our petroleum agri-industry.
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, "The worst econonomic system in the whole world is the free enterprise/capitalistic system. That is, unless, you are in one of the others."
I'm not blind. I know that we are in the world but not of the world. But at the same time, once you start moving more and more down the socialistic road, you will end up where you don't want to be.
As far as the plight of the poor in America, why are all of the poor people of the world trying to sneak into our country?
The USA offers every poor person a chance to make it out of the pit. What other country offers a chance to people like America?
Here's a thought, a little tidbit.
Why are all the democratic/socialist groups in Europe anti-God and anti-Christian?
"why are all of the poor people of the world trying to sneak into our country?"
Well, in the case of Mexico and many of our neighbors to the south, it's because "free trade," (along with bad national management - sometimes with and sometimes without US support and encouragement) has taken away their ability to make it in their homes and they're forced to move away from their loved ones to try to keep from starving.
Additionally, our Marketing forces have let it be known that the Western Overconsumptive Culture is THE way to live and they've believed our marketers.
"Why are all the democratic/socialist groups in Europe anti-God and anti-Christian?"
Because "christianity" has made itself irrelevant?
Now here's a question: why are all the Nutty Militia and Skinhead Groups pro-conservative "christians"?
Now here's a question: why are all the Nutty Militia and Skinhead Groups pro-conservative "christians"?
Do you really want to leave that statement without an apology to brothers and sisters in Christ? ALL? NUTTY? Skinhead Groups? Do you not consider yourself one of us or is being a conservative really that dreadful in your mind?
Larry made a sweeping generalization ("Why are all the democratic/socialist groups in Europe anti-God and anti-Christian?") to which I responded with my own sweeping generalization. It's an object lesson.
Of course, one should be able to self-identify as a conservative christian without being lumped in with nazis AND one should be able to self-identify as a Democratic Socialist without being lumped in with those who are anti-God.
Point taken?
Dan,
Poor people come to America looking for a better life. Period.
They have always done that. America is the land of opportunity for them.
What I said about the European democratic/socialistic groups is true. It's not a sweeping generalization. European nations are turning further and further away from Christ.
So, the question still remains: why are the European democratic/socialists always anti-God and anti-Christ?
Since you decided to give an object lesson. (For which I am ever greatful.) Maybe, I should give the answer. The Bible is for free enterprise which is the capitalist system.
Okay. You're right. Democratic socialists hate God. They want to kill babies and kick puppies. The Bible was written by Adam Smith. All Praise be to the Prophets of money and avarice. There is no way to view things but yours. We are one.
Socialism (not Marxism) was started in Britain by Christians in two movements--Fabianism and Chartism. This movement flourished from the mid-19th C. until the 1930s. Charles Dickens was a Fabian (as his novels' constant condemnation of contemporary British neglect of the poor show); several prominent Fabian and Chartist Christians were elected to Parliament.
Among 20th C. theologians, several have been members of Socialist parties, including Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr,Jurgen Moltmann and others. The conservative British NT scholar, F.F. Bruce, was sympathetic to some socialist ideas and, while never part of a socialist party, voted socialist in a few local elections. C.S. Lewis believed that Christians should be very conservative in some areas, but in economic matters should be more radical than most socialists.
The secularism of most European Socialists today has more to do with the secularism of Europe, period, than it does with any kind of incompatibility between democratic socialism and Christianity. Many Christians in Europe formed "Christian" parties whose main purpose is to get Christians special privileges from their governments. This has resulted in fewer and fewer Christians while the U.S. system of church-state separation has allowed Christianity to flourish. Many Christians in Europe who are not part of the state churches DO belong to socialist parties, rather than "Christian Democrat" parties--I know this especially in Germany.
Excellent and informative response, Michael. I think I'll copy and paste this up to the latest post, so that everyone is sure to see it...
"Okay. You're right. Democratic socialists hate God. They want to kill babies and kick puppies."
Now Dan, that's not fair. I've never known of Democrats to hate God or kick puppies.
Post a Comment