Economics
EAR WASHINGTON, I’m not very big on competition as a way of life. Capitalism, unrestrained, seems to me as an economic system of little guys feeding themselves to bigger guys. Socialism, on the other hand, while it seems to be the grass-roots economy preferred by the Gospel, is a failure on the level of the large governments that humans have constructed for themselves.
So, someplace between the two…
Please don’t give the public fund to businesses. Cars, banks, insurance… this is silly. Rather than Gov’t-run, socialised banking or federally-mandated wages for car makers, I’d rather have federally-funded medical insurance and other social services. Then let the economy collapse and let us build it up again.
Mind you, I’m not saying you must give the public fund to anyone at all.
But it strikes me that if we’re not worried about the basic needs of life – health, food, etc – we can set about competing to build the best businesses possible. Yes, there are some who would be lazy in such a situation. To that end I propose a ten-year plan by which this welfare should decrease, nationally, until there is just enough for the recipient to have rice and beans and a trip to the clinic. Some might live on that indefinitely. But I’d prefer the freedom to buy some grass-fed beef every now and then. And I’d prefer to have the freedom to build the business that would empower me to do so.
Stop trying to liberate the wallets of the rich: trickle down, supply side, Voodoo Economics has never, ever, worked. The rich, predictably, don’t want to carry the poor clinging too their coat tails. Rather, give the poor a road to walk on and we will move forward on our own feet – the rich may follow if they will.
I’d go for that.
Socialism … seems to be the grass-roots economy preferred by the Gospel
I don’t think there is any actual evidence in the Scriptures for this. The closest thing to it is the communitarian way of life among believers in the early chapters of Acts; but this is far more of a reflection of the character of the kingdom of God than it is a prescription of economic relationships in this world. In fact, I am doubtful that the Gospel has anything whatever to say about how the economy of this world is to be ordered. It has a good deal to say about how believers ought to care for the victims of this world’s economic order, but it does not seem to hold out any hope for any sort of salvation through changes in that worldly economic order.
That said, I tend to agree with you about government “investment” in private business — precisely because I don’t believe in socialism, whether of the marxist or the corporatist variety. And I am sympathetic to your small-scale, grass-roots approach to economic recovery. (I have my Belloc/Chesterton/Schumacher distributist streak.) But I think you will find that federally-funded health care and other social services is inconsistent with this grass-roots vision — because it is a large-scale top-down approach.
The closest thing to it is the communitarian way of life among believers in the early chapters of Acts; but this is far more of a reflection of the character of the kingdom of God than it is a prescription of economic relationships in this world.
As I understand what I wrote – you’ve agreed with me.
As I noted: the thing was if they want to pay money don’t do it to the big business, but rather to the poor. That’s assuming if they feel they have to do something. I also said they needn’t do anything at all – only that giving to the rest of us was better than giving only to the rich.
As I understand what I wrote – you’ve agreed with me.
This often happens to me at your site, Huw. I’ll start out violently disagreeing with a sentence or phrase you’ve written (e.g. “socialism is preferred by the Gospel”) and by the time I have finished my comment I’ve come around to agreeing with you or at least finding some common ground.
I still hate socialism and think it is intrinsically evil and unjust, though.
I still hate socialism and think it is intrinsically evil and unjust, though
let’s see…. I think this is where you and I will find our common ground.
Model one: I earn 100 thingies. The Gov’t takes away 90 and gives 10 thingies to each of the next 9 people without thingies they find.
Model two: I earn 100 thingies and, by covenant, give everything I own to my community and, together, we make sure everyone has enough thingies (and, maybe, the c community has a few thingies for the annual Christmas party).
Model one is the state socialism I said I didn’t like
Model two is the other kind I said I liked.
I don’t think any of our human economic systems are intrinsically evil: only that some are more or less in line with the Gospel; but none perfectly so. However I think any system that involves a top-down dictation of rules (etc) needs to be treated at arms length: part of the powers and principalities that have little or nothing to do with us.
The Parable of the Talents sounds more like capitalism as practiced by Warren Buffet. Hard work is rewarded.
The parable tells of a master who was leaving his home to travel, and before going gave his three servants different amounts of money. On returning from his travels, the master asked his servants for an account of the money given to them. The first servant reported that he was given five talents, and he had made five talents more. The master praised the servant as being good and faithful, gave him more responsibility because of his faithfulness, and invited the servant to be joyful together with him.
The second servant said that he had received two talents, and he had made two talents more. The master praised this servant in the same way as being good and faithful, giving him more responsibility and inviting the servant to be joyful together with him.
The last servant who had received one talent reported that knowing his master was a hard man, he buried his talent in the ground for safekeeping, and therefore returned the original amount to his master. The master called him a wicked and lazy servant, saying that he should have placed the money in the bank to generate interest. The master commanded that the one talent be taken away from that servant, and given to the servant with ten talents, because everyone that has much will be given more, and whoever that has a little, even the little that he has will be taken away. …
That came up in the Common Lectionary recently. I heard rather a lot of sermons about it (all on the same week in various podcasts). Most of them pointed out the same things about the parable and came to the same conclusions.
1) The amounts of money distributed are millions of dollars by today’s standards. The departing guy is either a king or a mob boss.
2) No slave would have known how to handle millions: the departing guy is abusive, and quite nearly sociopathological (see his comments to the man w/ one talent).
3) There is probably some other point to the story rather than economics.
I’ll leave the conclusions out of this post. See my comments are in an earlier post and I had a follow-up here.