I found this to be a particularly terrific column.

I am now going to devolve into a much less erudite comment:

Welcome to the club, Kristol and some conservatives!

Talking openly about the dangers inherent in the free market seems, I don't know, to be what some of us have been urging in politics for years. (Of course, only to be demonized as socialists, not that there's anything wrong with being one.) To anyone who has said that the "market will regulate itself" which really means that "the most powerful will abuse it" I'm happy to accept your contrition-soaked comments.

Were you too busy watching the idiot tube to read Predatory Bender (2003)?

http://www.amazon.com/Predatory-Bender-Story-Subprime-Finance/dp/0974024...

It makes me smile to see a real GOP party apparatchik (has anyone been more wrong than Kristol in the last 8 years?) suddenly parroting what the rest of us have been saying.

Once again we have "the slow crowd" coming along, suddenly saying, "hey let's have some regulation and reform." Yes, that's what actual liberals, who have been studying this problem for years, have been saying. Right now, I'm just thinking of all the other things that Kristol and the slow crowd oppose. Are we going to have to wait around another 20 years for them to stumble along into the light?

OK.

Back to Dave's fine argument. Integrating sympathy and self-interest - that sounds like the sanctifying work of a lifetime.

I personally separate sympathy as merely identifying a problem and empathy with identifying WITH a person. As we talk about the the jobless rate hitting a 26-year high this week, is that a useful distinction? Is that what Jesus taught?

Dave,

Look forward to the next installment. I may offer an opinion after that.

The best holistic "Capitalism" system to me was the theocracy of Israel.

regards,
pat

Hi Dave,

I'm in agreement with Alex. Great post. Part of the issue to what living in certain forms of society, i.e. a free-market economy, does to the "natural" compassion, if we agree this exists, in people.

I may be an extremely compassionate person; however, it seems this compassion will be short lived when I realize that no one else seems to be playing by these rules.

Your reference of Smith, reminds me of the views of one of his contemporaries, Rousseau, who had similar view of human nature; he argues that in a state of nature, humans are do have an egoistic streak, but this is balanced by their compassion--in nature, we are gentle creatures. It is living in society that corrupts us as we begin to lay a hold of things as "mine" and compete violently with each other.

The implied solution--get rid of property.

I don't think we're going there, though, right? =)

Looking forward to the next column!

Fine artical Dave,
Looking forward to more.

Alex, I fell for reading the links you gave. Boy, there is 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Complete tripe.
BTW, dont be so shy when posting. Some of us love arrogance so quit holding back.

Michael, what in the world?
I would imagine that there might be a few less comments like that if we were all sitting around a table after church talking, even if we strongly disagreed on substance. Is that true?

So David how would you say the theory in the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand- which to me was capitalism defined as survival of the fittest – fits into today’s problems? Or does it? one of the major banks, BB&T, holds this book to be the "Holy Grail" and they had one of the best financial records in this latest crash -(they did not do sub-prime lending).
Ellen

We have no better illustration of the "benefits" of capitalism and the free market system than the crashes of all the major Wall Street financial houses. Deregulation removed the safeguards and rewarded human greed, which is, at its base, the structure of the free market, or laissez faire economics.

Where, in any other area of life, do we allow, even expect to have the best results from self-regulation? No traffic laws? No laws against stealing or theivery? In all areas of business, the public expects, and accepts that there will be regulation of schools, business, professions, and more. Yet, when it comes to making money, it's no holes barred!

The opposite of Capitalism is Socialism. Yet no one complains of the government's Social Security, Medicare, or similar government operated safety net; something not available prior to the Great Depression. There are many voices opposing federal health insurance, but the figures for Medicare show that is is far less expensive than the privately operated Medicare insurance that has been optional. These private companies are not only subsidized by the government, but their admistration overhead is more than 10 percent above the one operated by the government. This makes absolutely no sense to subsidize insurance companies to duplicate the federal program that is far more costly.

These are just a few of the examples of the "socialism" that few remember when it is used as an epithet about something to be avoided. With the massive bailouts of the financial institutions and impending one with the auto industry, we are defaulting to government ownership whether we wish it or not.

The pros and cons of Capitalism must be considered in terms of the global economy, not the benefits to upper-middle class America, as is so often the case. Considering worldwide poverty it is quite difficult to agree that, "[Capitalism] takes people as they are and on this unpromising basis it fosters a way of life that works." 100,000,000 children living on the streets? The hand of the market isn't quite so invisible to them. The destruction of the environment is a grave consequence of capitalism, but it pales in comparison with the cost in blood.

How do we, "solve the so-called “Adam Smith” problem?" I don't think it can be solved by people feeling more empathy, or sympathy. It is a question of power. Goldman Sachs et all, are uniquely designed so that they doesn't feel sympathy and can extract as much as possible from the system, while allowing profits to continue; correctly, this is not an either dems or repubs question, but rather both and I can't see how depending on the good conscience of those who either caused or allowed the current mess is any solution. Again it is a question of economic and political power for the disadvantaged, not convincing multi-billionaires to make less profit.

The early church,(a revolutionary movement) was much closer to "from each according to their means to each according to their needs" than any sort of utopian capitalism that is going to get proposed and eventually eroded. Capitalism has been more successful than Feudalism, or slavery, yup. But, why do we settle for the line that capitalism is the best economic system that will ever exist? Weird.

"Capitalism is productive and efficient beyond compare." Actually Capitalism is extremely inefficient; A democratically planned economy, ie. socialism, is as effective, efficient and necessary as democracy in the political sphere.

Hi Dave Larson,

After reading your excellent post and the excellent comments, Christian ethics is definitely needed to wade through the ideological muck that surrounds secular and Christian discussion of freedom and capitalism and how it is defined by socialists / communists / collectivists / communitarians / progressives / liberals etc., and whatever "ists" come down the pike, in order to create the "new human" a la the communist attempt since the 1860s.

Many years ago I read a quote by Karl Marx that the essence of communism is the "elimination" of private property, or something to that effect, it's been decades since I read his words, but it seems to me that the ONLY way to deal with what the anti-free market ideologues call the "excesses" of capitalism is to remind them that freedom is not and can not be regulated... for the good of the people... and also maintain the freedom of the people... to fail or excell.

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Dave,

"William Kristol, neoconservative leader and Weekly Standard editor, believes that the time has come to rethink capitalism."

I would suggest to Kristol that it was the Republican Treasury Dept. and Administration and congress Rep. and Dems.that opened pandora's box by the tarp plan that was a bailout to wall street investment firms and banks who have prospered from fiat currency and off balance sheet accounting rules to leverage in excess of 30:1. Why should Obama not follow their initiated format?

My response also to this Dave is that no true conservative believes that the necessity of "sound money"(a pandora's box which was also opened when gold backed currency redemption was done away with by the Rep. Nixon Administration in 1971) and "sound accounting" and integrity are against the concept of proper regulation and "free entreprise."

later,

pat

Hi Everybody!

Thank you for comments! I hope to respond to them soon, either here or in the next column(s) or both.

My overall goal is to sketch a responsible critique of this very influential paragraph from "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton and Rose Friedman, and other statements like it:

“The view has been gaining widespread acceptance that corporate officials and labor leaders have a 'social responsibility' that goes beyond serving the interest of their stockholders or their members. This view shows a fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business --to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud. Similarly, the "social responsibility" of labor leaders is to serve the interests of the members of their unions. It is the responsibility of the rest of us to establish a framework of law such that an individual in pursuing his own interest is, to quote Adam Smith again, "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

The unfolding argument is that this not the kind of capitalism that Adam Smith had in mind and that this is not the kind of capitalism we Christians should endorse today.

These claims are separable; i.e. either of them could be true even if the other is false.

They are hypotheses to be tested against (1) the writings of Adam Smith, (2) what we ourselves have learned about capitalism since his time and (3) Christian views and values.

I express them now in hopes that others will join me in testing them in any or all of these three ways.

We can get started now, not necessarily waiting for more columns.

Thanks!

Dave

The biggest thing Captitalism has going for it is accountability and self responsibility. Through accomplishment and success one fulfills their responsibilities to their family, pays their tithe and offerings and assists the poor.
Captialism has the carrot and the stick. Potential and Risk.

Socialism has only the lowest common denominator and has failed wherever it has been tried historically.
The differences in the production rates of the Russian state farms and the small private plots are examples of it.
Like nature, humans seek the path of least resistance if the chance of success is blocked.
See (Matt. 20:1-16)The concern changes from one of seeking success and advancement to one where the only concern is making sure no one else has found a better deal than you have.

These principals have been lived out by individual persons but in different countries cultures and work ehics.

One of my former Mexican employees told a story widely known in mexico at a meeting one day.

He said his goal for his adult life was to be a japanese crab.

He then related the following story.
A guy was at the beach in mexico one day watching people. He noticed a guy walking along with 2 buckets and picking up small crabs and putting some in the bucket and then after watching the bucket for a couple minutes he would pick some of them back out and move them into a bucket with a lid on it.
His curiosity peaked he walked over to the man and heard him muttering, Mexican crab........Japanese crab.... as he sorted the first bucket.
Not being able to stand the suspense he asked the man what he was doing.
The man said watch. He picked up a crab, put it in the bucket without the lid.
The crab, in trying to get back out, grabbed on to anything he could including the other crabs and pulled them down in his efforts to ascend the side of the bucket.
Thinking that looked pretty normal the bystander asked the man, "Yeah, I see it. So what?" The man said those are Mexican crabs.

Whats the difference asked the bystander?
The man opened the bucket with the lid and in 2 minutes all the crabs made a ladder out of their bodies climbed up in an organized fashion and escaped.

Some people may say the Japanese crabs escaped by having concern for their fellow crabs and in a spirit of cooperation and self sacrifice made their escape,
but the real story is the japanese crabs were motivated by their own interests (escape) and not their touchy-feely esoteric societal concerns.

Moral
The best thing and the right thing can be the same thing, but not all the time.

Being a japanese crab is to be able to know the difference.

Even Christ said, the poor will always be with you.
My grandfather had a kind of Will Rogers kind of readers digest version of John 12:8.
He used to say, stupidity will always be its own reward.
Works for me.

I have little faith in any single, easily stated doctrine to solve the world's economic problems. I would propose that capitalism is indeed the most efficient engine known for material progress. But capitalism does not regulate itself. It needs external regulation to provide steering and braking.

Art to the contrary, it is quite possible to regulate freedom for the common good. We impose speed limits and mandate stopping at red lights for the common good, and these regulations do not keep keep drivers from failing or excelling.

The financial trading system we have had has encouraged greedy, smart people to invent more and more tricky and obscure devices in the search for more and faster profits. The present failure of the financial system illustrates the necessity of putting boundaries on greed. It is possible to do this quite effectively, just as society puts boundaries on being disagreeable to that extent that argumentation is permitted, even encouraged as a means of progress, but fisticuffs and killing is not.

Of course, boundaries on greed must not be so stringent as to stifle initiative and innovation. But they must be severe enough to prevent the kind of abuses that have brought the system to the present state. As Paul Krugman has said, in good times society must regulate those institutions that need bailing out in bad times. This has clearly not been done.

Those who have maintained that the markets are self-regulating are naive, I fear, in their view of human nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that the human heart is desperately wicked, and that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Society must protect itself from those who love money so much that they will resort to underhanded and obscure schemes to enrich themselves at the expense of the common good. The construction of such regulation is a task that will take much wisdom.

I take it that there are very few controlled economies in the world today, almost all having shifted toward more or less free markets. That's why I think it might be more timely to think through different forms of capitalism than to weigh them all against socialism. We'll see!

Don
I like your response and take on the subject.

Though many people want to tar a feather the greedy wall street types, how many people were forced illegally to buy stocks or invest their life savings in mutual funds or even private ponzi schemes?
None. A sucker born every minute right?

The thing I find most ironic is the liberal evolution minded activists who decry the abuses of the wall street types.
See 1st link. Interesting.

Capitalism links

Laissez- Faire Capitalism vs. Modified Market Capitalism
Which has Biblical support?
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw33capitalism.htm
Paper on 5 Different forms of Capitalism using for classic reference material Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Karl Marx’s Capital, and Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation.
http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/quaderni/collana/cap5.pdf
IVAN ALLEN COLLEGE
THE SAM NUNN SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY, TECHNOLOGY, AND POLICY
http://www.cistp.gatech.edu/publications/files/Bob%20Litan%20Write-Up.do...
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM

Michael

Thank you for the links. I will use them.

I view this conversation we are trying to have less as a debating society than as a cyber-seminar in which we are trying to learn from and teach each other.

I know there are some who want to reiterate what they've said over and over again and score what they think are funny points at the expense of other points of views. But that's all so yesterday................!

My view is that the current crisis invites as all to go back to basics and think things through again. That's why I'm trying to figure out what Adam Smith really said, etc.

David Wearing on "The End of Capitalism and Other Questions" at www.UKWatch.net. Summary: Capitalism as such is not dead but its neo-liberal form is in trouble; however, neoliberalism theorizes that economic crises are often the best times to advance it causes. http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_end_of_capitalism_and_other_questions

Many thanks!

Dave

"Capitalism ... rightly rewards those who take risks or develop needed skills, services, and products.... It is almost color blind,... . It champions liberty and it knows that without enough money to share one’s views freedom of thought and speech are truncated rights."

I appreciate the offering, however I would want to question the above celebration of Capitalism a bit more critically.

Many above have assumed the political context, suggesting that Socialism is the obvious counterpoint to Capitalism.
I suggest that Individualism is the more appropriate contrast upon which we should be more critical.

Our Democracies have tried to handle this tension through Utilitarianism which purports to offer the greatest good for the greatest number of people. With shifting social values - identifying the 'greater good' is often the greater problem.

We need to examine the phrase 'rightly rewards'

I have long reflected on Francis Fukuyama's contribution in "Trust: The Social Virtues and the creation prosperity".

It is suggested that our difficulties have come about not so much as a failure of Capitalism, but the depreciation of Social Capital. Capitalism works while the captains of industry are trustworthy, holding moral values consistent with those with those who entrust them.

Capitalism works when the risk takers take their own risks.

Our society has become dominated by Managerialism where people reap where they have not sown. When managerial skill adds value, reward is appropriate. However we gotten to the place where Managers reward themselves by accelerating the risks of others, suffering no loss when risk positions fail. Indeed they may receive handsome severance amounts for their failure.

Further, our system also rewards un-needed skills and services! Fame and celebrity have become a currency. How do we define 'right reward' in this context.

Capitalism has lost touch with 'right rewards'.

"It is almost colour blind"? Capitalism favours those 'with capital', it has high entry thresholds to those deficient in capital. Investment is based on 'Trust' and investors tend to trust 'their own'. In practice, Capitalism has not levelled the playing field. Both America and Europe are in their respective ways protectionistic in the preservation of local capital. The emerging people of this world do not celebrate our systems as 'colour blind'.

"It champions liberty and it knows.."? Our Judeo-Christian tradition may champion liberty. I am not sure how we get to credit economic Capitalism with this personified virtue.

Our problem is not so much debating the merits of Capitalism vs Socialism, or Dynamic vs Planned economy. Our problem is the loss of integrity, honesty and trust in our institutions.

Francis Fukuyama is instructive in this regard. His argument further reflects on the impact of faith and religion.He notes the impact of guilt/fear based faiths on prosperity, the consequence of which should not be missed by those of us who contribute to these pages.

victor

I think these are telling responses to my paragraphs.

As you say, in one direction there is the often negative impact of established economies upon people in emerging ones. Last Sunday's "60 Minute" segment on what an oil company is doing in Nigeria swiftly comes to my mind. On the other end is Managerialism.

How to restore at least some Social Capital and curtail the extreme and unwarranted excesses of Managerialism are important ethical questions in which Christian should be intersted.

Also, what's the social value, if any, of all this speculation? Do we need greater incentives to "buy and hold?" But how could one nation do this if the others don't?

As you say, utilitarianism often postpones questions of justice by constantly increasing the size of the economic pie so that people are happy because their absolute situations improve even though their relative ones don't.

Even if we approve of this, we cannot continue to grow the economy as we have been doing because it is too ecologically expensive. We need other ways to grow the economy and we need to reconsider issues of justice, I think.

I am amazed to read some people now saying that we need less--not more--regulation even though Alan Greenspan has called for more of the right kind.

I think this is ideological because there is no point at which the claim can be confirmed or disconfirmed; i.e., no matter how much we deregulate, it is possible to say that we need to deregulate even more.

But if the present situation doesn't mean that we need more of the right kind of regulation and less of the wrong, what possibly can?

In other areas of thought it is held that if an assertion is incapable of being either confirmed or disconfirmed, it is meaningless. I wonder if this never ending call for deregulation qualifies.

Thank you for your help!

Dave

Thanks Dave.

To further the argument, there is a convergence between this strand, and some contributors on the 'Last Generation Generosity' blog.

We have to decide whether we are builders and stewards of a society defined by Kingdom values, or doomsday people righteously gloating over our own demise.

Sadly, the doomsday brigade serve to alienate and ghettoise the poor. The church may grow numerically by pandering to the entrenched fears of the marginalised, but it must also accept the consequence of curtailing these peoples capacity to trust, take appropriate risk and prosper.

Building Social Capital / encouraging Kingdom values by contrast, means that people grow as a consequence of their faith and faith communities. This has nothing to do with 'get rich quick' or works theology, it is rather recognising the consequence of following God's word.

Christians have a lot to offer in these times. It is a pity that the Gospel gets high-jacked by the nutters.

victor

You write: "Christians have a lot to offer in these times. It is a pity that the Gospel gets high-jacked by the nutters."

You're so right! Thanks for the laugh!! I needed it!!!

Dave

Ah regulation vs de regulation?

As a veteran of Adventist Education - a la the 60's - no amount of regulation made us good, it made us inventive!

The volume of regulation is probably a red herring.

Trust is built through:

Greater competence - employing investors who understand the whole business, and its consequence. Banks have been run by sales people with tick boxes who are rewarded for making dodgy loans. As a Treasurer I have received requests from Banks wanting to make loans of obscene value to workers on modest salaries. What were they thinking?

Open Accountability - Our accounting systems are designed to conceal more than they reveal. How did we get away with off-balance sheet values for generations? Pension deficits have been concealed even in church accounts until recently. Accountability requires that people are rewarded for openness.

Not long ago we took (paid for) 'expert' investment advice with regard to Additional Voluntary Pensions with Actuaries at our side. Equitable Life was as safe as houses - 'you can't go wrong' they said. Six months later, the whole thing was 'belly up'! What do these people know?

Reliability - The reward system is generally short term, profit takers run too soon. Financial objectives need to be rewarded across a full business cycle rather than the last quarter or year. The real value of Capital is defined in terms of wealth accumulated over a life span.

Fairness - When capitalism results in steep prosperity gradients a cascade is almost inevitable. Financial capitalism is based on layers of investment workers creaming off percentages rather than offering solid time based work and skill. Collapse becomes inevitable. Some of the arrangements around are no more than legalised pyramid schemes.

We need to learn the value of contentment. It is great gain.

I do not see stockbrokering and working the markets as a particularly admirable game, except to the extent that the system actually serves to move capital effectively to where it is needed, which I suppose adds value.

1. If a great many people trade a stock and this activity runs up the price of the stock beyond a reasonable earnings expectation then it becomes speculative to the extent that the "value" of the stock is based largely upon further increases in its value. Then the game changes from realizing a reasonable return on investment, which no one begrudges, to speculation. Are there moral implications?

2. The securitization process--by which mortgages or other debt instruments are packaged and re-sold, is said to facilitate the provision of credit, which is surely useful in our system. Apparently a lot of this has been done in ways that obscure the true value and risk of the resulting instruments. It seems clear that this sort of activity must be considered to be immoral.

While I think wise and adequate regulation is necessary, I agree with much of what victor says in his post just above.

The purchase or sale of stock is not of itself moral or amoral. Indeed much of the movement of stock is performed by computers set to act on pre-determined trigger points. It is corrosive when stock moves - simply because stock is moving, if that is not double dutch. Traders have become Lemming like. Too little is based on solid awareness and study of the businesses concerned and their real long term value. In the regular flow, markets adjust and find their level, however when panic sets in there seems to be no mechanism to say 'stop', lets reflect, before the lives and careers of real people are damaged.

Investors can spend ridiculous sums on advice that is simply nullified by joy riding gamblers. Morality requires that we reflect on the actions we take. Markets are incapable of reflection.

There is a saying that economists have predicted ten of the last five recessions. Event the "greatest" Rubin, Greenspan, et al cannot predict what the future holds. The market moves on psychological means totally unpredictable.

Watching on PBS several weeks ago "The Great Market Crash of '29" showed how only three men essentially controlled the NY stock exchange. By buying huge amounts of certain previously-chosen stock they were able to send it skyrocketing when other buyers saw it moving upward, then on a decided day the wealthy men sold theirs and the market crashed, leaving hundreds or more destitute.

This repeats itself every generation, it seems, for those who have not studied their history. Some of us Depression era kids have been very conservative, investing in Treasuries or government bonds, and while not paying much interest, at least the principal is guaranteed. I have recently been very affected by a family member who has been involved in stocks for years--and being rewarded handsomely. But it's a gamble which took its toll and when the bottom fell out, the actual debt will take years to repay. All with good intentions to ensure that he and his family would be protected with larger pension and college funds.

This story can be repeated ad infinitum and no one is, or will be unaffected; either personally, or by close friends or family. The truly unlucky ones are the retired who have seen their lifetime pensions erased. Now: consider if we had heeded this administration's request to privatize Social Security!!

Did I hear or read somewhere the idea of incrementally decreasing capital gains taxes the longer one holds a share? Is this being done now?

[This shows how little I've had to worry about capital gains or losses. I'm not going to sell a dime's worth of what little retirement money I have on the market till it gives me back what it has taken. I'm feeling very stubborn about this. Will I still be alive? :(

I refuse to say "the market hath given, the market hath taken, blessed be the name of the market!"

Not sure about CGT, this varies from place to place.
Most pension investmentor head for the calm waters of Government Bonds (Gilts)in years closer to retirement.

Sadly, with Government's dishing out loans to failing industries, the value of Bonds are also under pressure.

David, I think there are just two tiers, long term and short term.

Victor,

You say that trading "is corrosive when stock moves - simply because stock is moving, if that is not double dutch."

I think what you are referring to is what electrical engineers refer to as a positive feedback loop--when things go up, the system sends it up some more. A good example is what happens when the public address operator turns up the volume a little too much, the microphone picks up the sound from the speaker which is amplified again, and again, so that the system "rings"--and will keep doing so, louder and louder, until something limits the loudness.

Systems with positive feedback are inherently unstable. That's the problem with the market--stock goes up, so people want it more, which drives it up some more. The same happens in a downward spiral such as we have now.

Seems to me that a moral and social obligation of regulation should be to put some negative feedback into the system. I don't know how that would be accomplished--I'm not an economist.

Don

Yes the discipline of Economics is littered with the models of Newtonian Physics. More recently, Quantum and Biological models among others are currently embraced.

The 'invisible hand' seems to infer that the economy moves as if there were a controlling mind, when in fact there is none, save the interference of Central Banks and Government. These distortions risk over compensating pressures in other sectors. Hence the calls by Conservatives to leave the market to its own devices. The market will do what it does.

Regulation could be improved to avoid the deviant behaviour of rogue traders. It seems that there ought to be dampening controls to limit the unfettered runs on a given stock thereby introducing time for rationality and moral influence. Our institutions should not be undermined by unsubstantiated gossip. This could/should be done by financial institutions themselves rather than by political intervention.

Financial institutions made loans on a ridiculous scale to people incapable of supporting their committment. This is not an issue of regulation, it is wanten stupidity. Banks violated their own conventions on loan to deposit ratios and prudence. Governments winked at the practice since it relieved them of social responsibility.

In previous depressions, the circulation of money could stimulated by Government intervention. In our current setting we have moved millions of jobs off shore and thus limited the capacity to reboot things at home. New Government money is as likely to move off shore as it is to circulate at home.

We are in a different ball game! Vicous spirals are likely.
Only virtue can initiate a virtuous cycle!

If my people will humble themselves...

The problem I see with relying on banks and financial institutions to regulate the system is that they are responsible only to themselves and their shareholders. But the effects of their actions goes far beyond.

As we have seen, their sense of responsibility has been insufficient in many cases to rein in even their most egregious foolishness. There is only one entity, government, which is by charter responsible to the entire society, and in the present case many people, including some hitherto ardently laissez faire types, are looking to government for whatever solutions are to be had.

Government does not pretend to anything but rough justice. But even though it would be vastly better if people would observe morality and refrain from mayhem, we do not thereby excuse government from arresting robbers, murderers, and child molesters.

Similarly, it would be better, for sure, if financial institutions would behave according to their own prudential culture. This does not seem to me to be a good argument against some governmental bounds on really egregious and destructive behavior.

I guess I would err a bit on the side of regulatory strictness, because I think that orderly, slower growth, somewhat hampered by regulation, is better than boom and bust. So long, of course, as regulation is not so severe as to choke off growth and initiative.

I am alarmed, as you seem to be, at the diminution of productive capacity in this country. Ultimately our wealth comes from making things, not from financial manipulation. That being said, I am not against other previously "backward" countries developing their own capacities and becoming wealthier.

Their doing so may put downward pressure on our own lifestyles, which would not be a bad thing, in my opinion, since we are presently awash in luxuries which we have been taught are necessities and our birthright. To my mind there are whole sectors of the economy which are dispensable. But that is another discussion.

It should have been obvious to all but the few not watching: When huge comissions are given for selling someone a mortgage, regardless of the capability to pay, then passed along with a mixture of both good and bad loans, and they get bundled and passed again, all the while Moody's and Standard & Poor are giving this worthless papers AAA rating--which used to stand for the highest grade--it should be no surprise that human greed has been running the show. Now, hapless people, both holding good and bad mortgages are closed out of their homes.

It would be much better for the banks to negotiate with homeowners for a lower interest, which is falling below what it's been rather than locking them out and allowing all the surrounding homes to lose value, and lots of homeless people. Foreclosed and empty houses are subject to vandalism as they cannot be policed all the time. Everyone loses through the greed of a few who were fully aware of what they were doing but the quick money was too good.
Hence, the need for "police" to enforce tighter regulations. In past days, it was the local bank selling mortgages to a citizen in the community and if they couldn't pay, the bank was responsible. With today, there may be dozens of banks that your mortgage was sold to and no one is ultimately responsible.

I need a reality check on Naomi Kline about "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."

Apart from any of her perscriptions, on a scale of 1 - 10, 10 meaning the best, what score does she deserve on the credibilty scale? Here she gives a nine minute summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw

Other than just watching the clip, I am not familiar with the ladies work.

In essence Naomi is describing an economic variant of Catastrophe theory. Drastic change that comes about when a small shift in a single dimension drives equilibrium over the cusp.

Few have the courage to instigate those shifts especially when there are multi-dimensional pressures that if coordinated could bring about the same result. (Assuming the result is desirable)

Sadly democracies rarely have sufficient consensus to agree these forces. Shifts are therefore unscripted and outcomes un-intended.

Interestingly one could probably put together the competing perspectives on Salvation we argue over and illustrate the efficacy of the Cross using the Catastrophe Cusp. It is a fascinating model for describing dramatic change.

Thanks for writing out about this topic. I look forward to your next column as well. I agree that capitalism is built on private property and free voluntary exchange between consenting competent people. I disagree, however, that capitalism is the same a greed. My understanding is that greed as a "deadly sin" relates to an obsession with accumulating material goods where such goods are valued more than God. Voluntary transactions, however, can be informed by whatever values a person has, which does not necessarily include greed.

I also disagree that capitalism "depends upon a constantly growing economy" and "unsustainable consumption". Of course, a growing population would need to create more wealth in order to just maintain stable wealth. But voluntary transactions of private property certainly do not depend on unsustainable consumption.

You are thoughtfully raising serious issues and I look forward to learning more from you.

The old saying about land: "they're not making it anymore" becomes more applicable. When this earth no longer sustains the population, then what? Increasingly, there are more non-arable lands worldwide, whether global warming, or whatever. When food-sustaining crops are transferred to growing crops for fuel (as in the latest ethanol craze), there is less land for edible crops. What are our priorities? More fuel or food?

Not to mention water: we are fast running out of potable water sources as lakes begin drying up. Without water, there will be no life. In many world areas that has already become a natural disaster. Building large populations in the deserts hoping there will always be water will become a wasteland without H20. For many reasons, this earth cannot infinitely sustain a growing population.

I’ve been thinking about Kline a bit lately after just reading the New Yorker’s piece on her and so sat up in my chair when I heard Senator Corker; R TN (one of the Republicans in accordance with the wishes of the foreign owned, non-union auto manufactures in the south who is opposing a bailout) say that the crisis is good because now we can do something. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) clearly states their position on the political and economic opportunities of crisis. It's a testable factor of how the system evolves.

Regarding the crab analogy used earlier, it's the ladder-making crabs that are socialists and the me-first crabs that are capitalist. Socialism isn't a response to touchy-feely issues, it is the most rational response to the recognition that the economy works best democratically. Having read the history of the Left Opposition to the right-wing, reactionary, kulak driven plan of collectivization, I don’t advocate state capitalism and it really isn’t accurate to say the state farms were socialist.

There certainly is a lot of propaganda that Capitalism is efficient, it sometimes seems the case, but taken as a whole, it is actually extremely wasteful, redundant and does not supply equitable rewards for labor. Think about any company and all its competitors and how efficient and profitable (in terms of resource usage) the industry would be if it were in the hands of the workers. In addition, contrary to the conventionally supplied wisdom, industry would not be stifled. Eliminating copyright control and patents and instead sharing inventions would aid development and greatly expand the creative potential and go a long way to meeting people’s needs. Incidentally this understanding of resources avoids the liberal notion that developed world standards of living must go down in order for the underdeveloped world to improve.

Dave opens up an interesting question about the regulation of markets today, no there are not really any planned economies in the socialist sense, workers in control of production based on resources and not finance. Looking at the worldwide bailouts, it is again apparent that the largest industries and biggest multinationals don’t really care about the purity of Capitalism, they only care about their self-interest which is something quite different.

There are many suggestions put forward here to improve capitalism, but if I can make an analogy it is like trying to find a way to make slavery humane. It is impossible to lock in any of these proposed reforms as the corrupting power of capitalism always allows for counter-attacks. Just look at the back and forth of the gag rule. Under Repubs, there is a gag, under Dems, no, fluctuating with the administrations.

Unless there is a change of the system into a democratically, worker controlled economy there will continue to be this boom-bust cycle, profit controlled industry assures it.

sorry so long ;)

"Regarding the crab analogy used earlier, it's the ladder-making crabs that are socialists and the me-first crabs that are capitalist."

Perhaps you should read down further to the point of the story about the crabs.
Capitalism can choose me first or cooperation depending on what is most effecient in the situation. Socialism only has me first and that is based on survival. Talk to some Russians.

"Socialism ... is the most rational response to the recognition that the economy works best democratically."

Democratic socialism? There is no such thing as an economic model. The term is only used to con notate the change from one economy to a socialist one by democratic vote and not a revolution.
However those European countries that have voted to follow that route have nearly always referred to that term to mean an economy which is a strong welfare state relying on fiscal redistribution and some nationalisation of businesses or industries.

"There certainly is a lot of propaganda that Capitalism is efficient, it sometimes seems the case, but taken as a whole, it is actually extremely wasteful, redundant and does not supply equitable rewards for labor. Think about any company and all its competitors and how efficient and profitable (in terms of resource usage) the industry would be if it were in the hands of the workers."

There is only 1 industry that is clearly in the hands of its workers.
The government and the public education sector. What other type of person would pay millions of dollars (in a campaign )for a job that pays hundreds of thousands and then always vote themselves raises without even asking their bosses (the voters)?

Look at a ranking of national GDP numbers. The US is #1 or #2 always. There is a push on since around 2004 or before to change the way the National GDP numbers are compiled in an apparent (some say) effort to make the "democratic socialist" countries not look so anemic.
They pushed for statistics to be based on an hourly rate or GDP per hour worked since many EU countries and Scandinavian countries only work part time.
Germany is one of the shortest at about 25-30 hours a week. Switzerland averages about 30-35 hours a week.
http://www.sneijers.net/718/netherlands-has-shortest-working-week/
One US economist said US workers working a 40 hour work week was one of the few things that kept personal debt as low as it was. He said, Its hard to spend money when your making it.

If you are Belgian and only working 25 hours a week, what are you doing with the rest of your time? Sitting in your 800 sq ft apartment planning your next free medical procedure?

If it was us Americans we would be out doing something and being out doing something costs money.

Long story short. An economy based on a strong welfare state relying on fiscal redistribution and nationalisation of businesses or industries is anathema to Americans.

We are seeing a foray into nationalism with the bailouts and Americans will accept some of these measures as a short term emergency fix but I would expect a violent opposition to being made to move towards a "democratic socialist" system by their politicians.

Craig

Thank you for your comments. I'm trying to rethink the relationships between Christian ethics and what they used to call "political economy" in light of our current crisis.

I really don't have the answers but I'm looking here and there. And I'm grateful for any help!

Its really hard for me to think that Homo Economicus is an adequate view of human nature from a Christian point of view. So I'm working away on that.

Kline's research and reflection, with which I am just becoming acquainted, has been quite a challenge for me, not to understand but to believe (because I so much don't want too!).

I am persuaded that some politicians have been using fear to get people to let then do what they want in international relations. Why shouldn't I expect them to do this in domestic affairs too?

Thanks again for your help. I hope you keep on reading, thinking and sharing, as is convenient.

Not everybody is interested in economics. Even fewer might be intersted in philosophy and theolgy. So I'm on the lookout for participants in what I hope will be an onging cyber-seminar!

Dave

Michael

I'd be interested in your reaction to this 9 minute interview of Naomi Kine on "disaster capitalism," when you are able.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw

Thank you!

Dave

Lewis Lapham, one of my favorite writers, in Jan. 2009 Harper's, calls it like he sees it in his acerbic ans sarcastic wit. Comparing Thomas Friedman's utopian dream of a past time in the U.S. that never existed, he shows how the problems we see today in Wall St. is nothing new.

"For the financial operatives booming the sale of worthless paper, the bonus money last year came up to the sum of $39 billion. How not at least commend so vivid a revival of the frontier American spirit and so eloquent a testimony to the powers of the unfettered free market?"

Recalling our early history of the battle with British, John Adams said of the piracy conducted by the U.S. against the British ships, he said "It is prudent not to put virtue to too serious a test. I would use American virtue as sparingly as possible lest we wear it out."

"To think the the Wall Street financial institutions seek to protect the equity of their customers in preference to their own is to think that at the Las Vegas poker tables the dealers seek to protect the chips stacked in front of the sweet old lady in the baseball cap playing a system drawn from the book of Revelation.

"When it was suggested (as long ago as 1994) that the newborn market in derivativeds demanded some sort of government supervision, Greenspan discounted the suggestion as insulting to the integrity of the public-spirited Wall Street gentlemen laboring on behalf of the common good; when on October 23 of last year he appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to explain what had gone wrong with the making of something out of nothing, his tongue cleaved to the roof of his mouth. 'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity myself included are in a state of shocked disbelief.'

"Just as the stock-market speculations do what they're intended to do, which is to reward the promoters and fleece the marks, the government does what it's supposed to do, which is to enrich the creditors and plunder the debtors.

"Bait and switch is the name of the national pastime. President Grover Cleveland confirmed the principle in 1887, explaining his veto of a bill passed by Congress to provide financial aid to the poor. 'The lesson should be constantly enforced,' he said, 'that though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.'"

Like most terms there are a variety of ways democratic socialism can be defined, in the context I used it, I meant that socialism (not Stalinism) is democratic as opposed to capitalism, which is not based on democratic principles.

Michael, I hope you aren’t serious that the government is either an industry or that it’s under control of working class people. Congress giving itself a raise is management putting itself first, it’s no more socialist than Merrill Lynch execs giving themselves absurd bonuses. As far as the actual workers, federal employees aren’t even allowed the freedom to strike! Public education is partially ruled by federal mandates, state regulations and local boards and always under attack by the right, but it still isn’t an industry in any real sense.

As I mentioned, I’m not for state capitalism, but examples of industries that are partially socialized are the post office, police and fire departments, and city run utilities. The government being capitalist and controlled by big business, generally erodes these at every opportunity through neoliberal privatization, etc. The same reason it's rational to have everyone’s house fire extinguished is the same reason it is rational to provide education to everyone regardless of their family’s wealth and the same reason it is rational to run the major industries the same way.

Not sure what is new by noting of the fact that capitalist systems statistically work their populations harder, longer and with less reward and create greater class stratifications. Real wages for working class Americans haven’t moved in 30 years, that is immoral. Make fun of universal health care if you want, Belgians might well be sitting in their apartments wondering what medically caused bankruptcy is. Their politicians didn't want to give it to them either, they had to.

I appreciate that there are no absolute economic models, more like different variants. Frontline did a show on the varieties of healthcare around the world called, SIck Around the World (available on their site). Really clarified the fact there are so many options, ways of structuring things, why support a system that is punching you in the throat?

Giving banks money with barely any oversight, hoping to prop them up is not really nationalization. Taking our money back from them is.

The Christian Response, like what David seems to be looking for is truly muddled with so many theories. Don't some theories claim that Christ was a socialist in thought?

The Christian principle, I suppose, is built on principles that sound like oxymorons - "Servant leadership", "leadership integrity", etc. It makes provisions to putting back into a system from which you have gained.

I am from India where the sheer number of people looking for better lives makes it a very attractive market. We have often looked at lives in the USA, Europe and have wanted to be like that (two-car homes, huge house even though only 2 people might live in them, flying around for holidays, high-tech electronic gadgets, etc). When we are probably on the threshold of being able to get there, we are hit with this mantra of caring for the ecology. Many here say that after the west has lived decades of wasteful lives, their legacy is preventing us from living the "good life". The American leadership can't accept the Kyoto Protocol to reducing greenhouse emissions because it will hamper their economic leadership and growth. So, we are ready to start our own vicious cycle here. Hopefully, this recession with knock some sense into our own driven lifestyles.

I believe, as a Christian, that hopefully my modest lifestyle, putting resources back into the development of the future will be the start that will impact with time.

By the way, excellent article.

Craig
Not all of what your saying is disagreeable to me. It is that certain aspects are attributed to the wrong underlying causes.

I will try and demonstrate what I mean.
"
Congress giving itself a raise is management putting itself first, it’s no more socialist than Merrill Lynch execs giving themselves absurd bonuses."

That corelation is in the smallest sense true. In the cycle, Government is acountable every 4 years. That is when their bosses, (the voters) can do something about their "employees".
You vote one out and he is replaced by someone who promises he's the one. Different. He's got change as his middle name, but since its 4 years again till he is held accountable again, and the system works like it does, he is faced with the choice of getting nothing done trying to change the system for 4 years or trying to use the system so he has at least a small record of accomplishment to campaign on in the next cycle.

Merril Lynch is accountable to its stockholders on a DAILY basis. If things arent done well people can take their money out and put it in another investment house. People can dump their stock. ect.
It is in this way that Americans have more freedom to influence what they support and what they dont.

"As I mentioned, I’m not for state capitalism, but examples of industries that are partially socialized are the post office, police and fire departments, and city run utilities."

Any good joke needs a seed of truth to be funny. Around here its, whats orange and white and sleeps 6? A PUD line truck.
Its true. Go past any public utility site in the country and you will see one guy in the hole, one on a excavator and 6 standing around.
PUD's are cataorically different than the others you mention since they have revenue streams in excess of expenses. The FD cant charge what it costs when your house burns down. The police cant cover their costs by writing traffic tickets. Therefore they live within their budgets and cut staff and facilities when called for.

"The government being capitalist and controlled by big business, generally erodes these at every opportunity through neoliberal privatization, etc."

Misatributed. You need to think behind to the motivations.
If big buisness has influence, why? Only because election campaigns cost 100 times what the job pays.
If politicians were more afraid of the voters than they were not having money to campaign with, which would win?
Forces in nature go to the path of least resistance.
Many solutions are available to fix this but since the Supreme court has ruled that money is equal to free speach it cant be regulated.
If voters would only support candidates who accepted minimal public funding, big buisness would have little sway with politicians since they would no longer need the extream amounts of money to campaign with.
Blame the voters, US for not having the knowledge and insight to remedy a situation within the law.

"The same reason it's rational to have everyone’s house fire extinguished is the same reason it is rational to provide education to everyone regardless of their family’s wealth and the same reason it is rational to run the major industries the same way."

The assumption being that everyone would be a professor lawyer of doctor if they only had access to a good education?
Untrue. True that some who had the mental ability to do those tasks, do not because of the lack of money to attend colleges, but there is no guarantee that if they did get the funds that there would be jobs waiting for them anyway.
(Think about the number of people getting degrees in religion or M Div or the like.) just because you get a degree doesnt mean anyone wants to hire you.
It also doesnt mean that workers who are good at their particular areas of expertise would be any good whatsoever in buisness, marketing or management. Nor would their be incentive to do so since the types of worker based companies have no incentive program.
I have some experience/knowledge with the aluminum industry. Specifically with a plant or 2 that were to be closed with a down turn in the economy and the price of aluminum nearly 20 years ago. An employee leveraged buyout with some wealty investors was done. The investors were paid off with a 10 year glideslope to a 100% employee owned company. A long term contract for electrical power was made with the BPA saving a local industry and providing jobs. The wealthy investors had experience with buisness and the workers knew the plant was going to close for good if wage levels werent addressed.
Everything went fine until the last 3 years or so of the 10 year glide slope. As the company became profitable and the shares of the investors less the employee management made new contracts with the union. Comming from a union background themselves they gave many silly concessions.
It got to the point where a drunk guy who ran one of those big terex trucks was running around crashing into things and was indangering the other employees. One employee let management know this was happening and was found beaten unconcious in the break room. The union refered to their contract and it said the employee could not be fired for these actions and if it wanted to take action the only one available to it was to send the dysfunctional employee home with pay indefinitly.
Are these the models of worker owned companies you have envisioned?

Lastly you make this statement.
"Real wages for working class Americans haven’t moved in 30 years, that is immoral."
What it is is nonsense.
30 years ago an average house for a family was 1200 sq ft. They had one car. TV was free on antenna. There were no cellphones or 100 dollar nike tennis shoes or air conditioning. Interest rates were between 13% and 21% if you remember Carters misery index. Now they are between 4 and 6.5%.
If your going to be real, at least have the decency to conceed the standard of living has gone up exponentially. That in its self in quite a raise.
Whats normal now is a complete luxury then.

Dave,
The video was good in a lot of ways.
She covered so much ground I don't know where to begin.

She mentioned the Polish voters after the Warsaw riots in 1989 voting for a worker controlled system as did the South Africans and the Russians. She also talked a lot about shock treatment and comparing that with economic change.
In the last moments she did say that these worker systems had prevailed and the other systems discredited.

Since their was so much information and a wide range of specifics I am quite open to being wrong on the impressions I will now relate.
1st I will say that in Poland and South Africa and Russia, the system they were running away from was not a form of capitalism, it was forms of socialistic communism turned Totalitarian.
When these countries changed no one owned anything. Who was there to leverage their assets to raise capital, start a business and become an employeer?
It is unfair to give someone a factory and say this is yours if you'll only start hiring people. They knew that so starting out in capitalism cold turkey is not possible in those situations.
It is natural that these countries would turn to the systems they did. Not because of some sense of community and brotherly love but because it was the best system to start out with given the situation they were in.
The story of Capitalism and the crabs allows for this. It says in these conditions this is the way to start.
You will also note that when given the chance Poland, Russia and South Africa moved to Capitalism when/where they could.
They had their experiences with robber barons which were essentially criminals who developed extra cash faster than the average person did saving up from their job.
Just like Joe Kennedy running moonshine and other things. It put him in a position to then make more legitimate investments like wall street and hollywood.
He said of JFK when he was asked how he expected him to be elected president when nobody knew him, "We'll sell him just like he was soap flakes." and he did.
Still works today as we saw in this last election cycle.

If someone is predisposed to think Poland, Russia and South Africa chose the systems they did for any other reason than it was the best decision at the time, IMO they would be wrong.
She also mentioned capitalism being forced on the Iraqi's and how that was an additional shock value to cause them to act like little children and accept change.
I don't know the validity of that concept, but I think you have to start with something and like it or not capitalism is the most self evident form of economy throughout the world.
Traders from Pakistan to isolated villages up the amazon now and 1000 years ago traded what they had for what they needed/wanted. Credit the Chinese for the concept of paper representing a hard currency to facilitate ease of trade and you have capitalism.
It is also like real estate.
The laws of real estate say there is no agreement that you cant make if you have 2 willing party's.

She also touched on the concept of a war on terror being a permanent force for manipulation partially of our economy and others. I found it to be too Machiavellian and sensational and more tailored to sell books than accomplish it's stated goals in real life.

One truth is that in all societies, things change. What got you out in front will not necessarily keep you there. Different additions, subtractions, restraints and encouragements are needed at different times.
Only capitalism has shown flexible enough to handle the changes. It is also more accountable than other systems. Americans demand that the buck stops somewhere.

Any business that is spending someone else's money doesn't manage it as well. I have business experience with some other industries like produce warehouses and co-ops. The forklift salesmen will always tell you they have much more success selling new forklifts to the co-ops than they do the privately owned warehouses.
Same principal with the Government and educational sector.
The GSA holds auctions across the country selling everything.
You only see the private sector doing that when they go out of business.

What about the early Christian model? -- selling everything you have, communal living, etc? Nobody's going to mention the book of Acts?

Hi Casey!

Yes, indeed, I think we should look at the book of Acts because it seems to teach us two at least two relevant things:

Pooling resources and distributing them according to need is an excellent ethical ideal. That's the good news.

The bad news is that in Acts we see that such systems need to watch out for (1) conflict about who gets what and (2) freeloaders who take but do not give.

If we include II Thessalonians, one of the first New Testament documents, where Paul in effect says "Those who don't work, don't eat!" I think we can see both challenges.

I think that in our economic theories we need to keep in mind both of these. On the one hand, humans are capable of unselfishness. On the other, selfishness--as opposed to healthy self-regard, is always a temptation.

We will have problems in our economic theories if we ignore either of these great themes of Scripture, I think.

Thanks for this Biblical references. They are important!

Dave

Michael,

I object to the suggestion that Barack Obama was "sold" in the usual political manner. Yes, he spent an unprecedented amount of money, but he raised a large proportion of it from modest sized donations, much more than any candidate in history. It's estimated he had nearly 3 million donors. What that should tell you is that a tremendous number of people found his candidacy very compelling. He had real grass-roots support. He appears far less beholden to "special interests" than many other politicians.

I do not participate in the widespread cynicism about government's ability to do things well, even to run enterprises. The Conrail story is one counterexample to that cynicism; SS and Medicare are very efficiently run compared with private insurance, which spend huge amounts to avoid paying claims, and to avoid insuring people who might have claims.

Government is the name we give to enterprises that are best done all together, in a manner ultimately accountable to the whole society. One such enterprise is healthcare. I fail to see why it is better to pay $12,000 a year to a private company when paying $8,000 a year on extra taxes would accomplish the same thing. Everyone (even very conservative people) I've ever talked to who has lived under socialized medicine has had nothing but good to say about it.

But yes, capitalism remains the best known engine of material progress--albeit one that needs steering and brakes.

Paying Medicare private insurers more to offer plans that government run Medicare handles at far less expense is plain idiocy! As a Medicare recipient for nearly 20 years I have repeatedly refused to transfer to a privately run company when at present it has served me greatly.

To call it "socialized medicine" has meant a dirty word, but what is "dirty" is the underhanded manner in which the government has subsidized the large insurance companies to offer an alternative to Medicare.

Another recent disclosure is how this administration has changed the wording of the Treasury bailout plans that was intended to lessen executive payouts and compensation and restore them! Now, it seems Congress will have difficulty changing that last minute administrative "signing statement" that revokes what was intended and even specified originally.
In addition, while the bailouts to the financial institutions was intended to loosen credit, it has been used, instead, to purchase other banks or similar institutions and very little has been directed to those facing foreclosure. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Don
Thanks for your personal perspectives.
My perspective from socialized medicine is that many of my friends and family come down to the US for medical work.
If your perspective where you say, "I fail to see why it is better to pay $12,000 a year to a private company when paying $8,000 a year on extra taxes would accomplish the same thing." is correct then we should carry it out to its logical conclusion. Put the money in your own savings account and pay the doctor and cut out both the middle men!

How can another bureaucracy in between seller and buyer make the actual money involved go further? Its a mathematical impossibility no matter how effecient the company is run.

When I was in my early 20's I had embryonal cell carcinoma. I had surgury and Chemo for 3 months. I could have been well on my way to self insurance by now. Paid the 50-60K the surgury and chemo cost and been 180k to the positive by now with what my health insurance premiums cost.

Also SS and medicare are only 1/2 the story. With politicians comming up with new rights that evreryone is entitled to now they add on benefits the system cant pay for.
Have you read the reports that show the number of people paying into the system when it started and the number paying in for everyone taking out now?

My grandmother was one of the first paying in as a new wage earner when it started. She would have drawn out every penny she had ever put in plus whatever the current rate of interest was at the time compounded in her first 6-8 months.

You have to look at both sides of a balance sheet to know if an enterprise is well done. You cant control the pandering politicians on the spending side so how effecient the bookwork side is makes no difference to the solvency of the enterprise.

Also the SS system is lasting longer than it mathmatically would have due to one source that suprises most people. Undocumented workers. They pay in like the rest of us but their names dont match teir SS numbers on their cards. This money goes in a s a SS mismatch and not attributed to any persons account. That does not mean that that money is there waiting for them. It goes out to provide benefits just like everyone elses.
I always wondered how the retired labor minded workers felt about having minorities effectively subsidize their retirement.

Hear, hear, Elaine.

Michael, two comments:

1. People were coming to the US for medical treatment long before there was socialized medicine in other countries. At present there are many Americans going abroad to get treatment, at lower cost. I don't think there is a good argument in this either for, or against universal healthcare coverage.

2. Some people are going to need, in a lifetime, much more costly healthcare than others. Individual risk is largely unknown, but over a large population actuarial science can predict with a fair degree of certainty what the average cost will be for the total population.

People buy healthcare insurance so that they will be covered if they are one of those unfortunate enough to require a lot of expensive care. If the pool is very large and randomly selected, premiums can be charged to everyone which reflect quite closely the average healthcare costs of the whole population.

If insurers are allowed to pick and choose those who they insure, they will, of course pick those who are less likely to be paid claims. This distorts the whole scheme. Those considered by the insurers to be poorer risks will be charged premiums much in excess of the average, and may not be able to get coverage at all.

I think your own experience is precisely an argument for universal health care insurance, not against it. It well illustrates the pickle that a person gets into who requires expensive care--it often means bankruptcy or extended poverty. It shows the futility of trying to go it alone and trying to put away enough money to cover extreme medical expenses.

Medical care, because of the extreme variations in financial need, is clearly a situation in which we all do better when we all work together, unless we are willing to be a society in which we allow people to die in the streets. Medical savings accounts are not the answer; insurance, based on sound actuarial principles, is.

Well put Don, I think that one of the great things about Marx's process and ideas is that they followed a very rational and scientific method and a deep understanding of the human, rather than being an ideological formation like those of the past.

I would like to propose we peel back the layers of structure here and ask where the power in the different economic models lie. Marx developed some helpful understanding in identifying what he termed, "social weight" the segments of society that are the most powerful, following on that Antonio Gramsci developed the concept of hegemony, identifying that it's important to recognize cultural power and not just economic materialism and that omnipresent hegemony is the domination of certain ideas over others, and that this process creates and reifies the power structure.

I hope we all recognize that the operation of capitalism globally is not consistent with the will of the world's population. Understanding that, we have to ask ourselves why that is, what forces allow capitalism to subjugate millions of people? How is power structured in our global society and in our own national system? I'm interested in what social groupings people think are allowing this. There are of course "things" like Bill Kristol's quite standard and weekly penned nonsense, but what are the social structures and systems that allow his blatant fallacies?

On a fun note, I've always enjoyed this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1IME451NDY

The same concept in the genuis of this community?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

A perfect example of a simple question being compounded by stupididty to the point of absurdity.

"Funny, I don't recall a cry from Senate Republicans for salary caps on the stockbrokers whose jobs were saved in the Wall Street bailout. Nor, to my knowledge, have they demanded that white-collar workers in the auto companies take pay cuts. I do recall lectures from some Republicans in the Senate about how inadvisable it is for government to meddle in the workings of the free market. In my book, renegotiating labor contracts qualifies as meddling."

(Eugene Robinson, op-ed, Washingtgon Post, Dec. 16)

Dave,

Perhaps your title was meant for possibly more than you meant:"Capitalism: What Were Its Moral Strengths and Weaknesses?"

Now I suggest all systems are a form of "capitalism", it is just a matter of who owns the capital.Likely your concept only refers to the present US "Capitalism" which would be unrecognizable to the founders of this country.

Your title thus is good in that a major paradigm shift is taking place first under the present Republican Administration,Fed and Treasury to be followed by the Dems Administration.

"WHAT WERE" is accurate for it is quickly fleeting away...that is, what served my country as "limited government and free enterprise" for almost 200 yrs.

I suggest the bottom line is "fallen human nature" which will ultimately destroy any system. It effects the most genuine "collectivist" state and the "limited government state." Somehow, I thank God for the "limited government concept" because it doesn' carry the force and sword of the state.

We need a king but that king is not to be found among men, all systems of men have failed. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

regards,

pat

Pat!

Thanks for your comments. I think I detect some downheartedness on your part about the way things are going. If so, that's because you are in touch with the real world.

We are all finding our own ways to cope. So far mine has been to turn to the writings of Adam Smith to see if he really says what so many report.

My hunch is that he would be aghast at what we have done in his name. But this is what I'm trying to confirm or disconfirm. Thank you!
Dave

I appreciate this site and the Compassion in Politics blog. Recently, I was surprised to see this article referenced at CiP. Nice.

http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/a-christian-critiqu...

Hi Jeff B!

Thanks for your encouragement and for the link to
Compssion in Politics:

http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/a-christian-critiqu.

I visited it and am about to do so again. Question: I wonder how what they mean by "compassion" relates to whatg Adam Smith meant by "sympathy?"

We'll see. Meanwhile, thanks again!

Dave

Hi Professor Larson (and others),
It’s great to see some Adventist theologians interested in economic issues regarding capitalism and politics. I haven’t seen much activity in this area in my life in our church (maybe I’ve just not looked in the right places though).

I became very interested in this topic in my work in some campaigns against poverty which helped me realize how the structural foundations of many of the most horrific injustices and deaths in the world are integrally connected with economics and esp. with capitalism. That led me to read a phenomenal and highly recommended book “Economic Democracy” which is free at http://www.ied.info/books. This book was a seminal change in my thinking and while I’m not sure if the author is Christian, many of the concepts that were examined and documented in the book helped me to understand the critical importance of God’s jubilee system (and another very similar one called Land Rent). It helped me understand how capitalism ignores critical aspects of Biblical economics and how that is the foundation of much of the misery and suffering of millions and billions in our modern world. The solution it provided was also very much in line with many Biblical economic and philosophical principles. I can’t recommend it highly enough (as well as several of the websites listed at the end of this comment).

Most people get caught in the 2 sided argument between A) capitalism and B) socialism/communism. They get caught in the trap of we have to follow either A or B or a mix of A and B without even considering the possibility of options C, D and more. This is unfortunate because while there are some definite advantages to capitalism as you have mentioned, it has some incredibly abusive and unjust aspects (But, of course communism is worse). But, the Jubilee system and the Land Rent system are really the only ethical and just economic systems and they take the best aspects of communism and capitalism and leave out the harmful aspects. The intriguing thing is that 1000s of the world’s greatest thinkers from all sorts of perspectives (Christian, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Asian, Western, etc.) have affirmed that this system is the only one that is really just and can solve the problem.

Capitalism free market concepts are brilliant, very productive and very much in line with Bible economic principles. But, as you mentioned, capitalism has many ethical problems. It is very damaging to the environment as you said (see also the brilliant video “The Story of Stuff” that is online free). It’s greed causes some to commit crimes against others that can be very painful physically, financially and relationally (I’ve experienced that personally).

But, something you did not mention is that capitalism is nearly anti-thetical to another critical aspect of Bible economics--the right of every individual to own and manage a part of the natural resources of the planet. This right is so fundamental and is so critical that God spent a very significant amount of time setting it in stone as inviolable in the Bible. Karl Marx talked about the “means of production” and Jubilee type systems directly ensure that every person is in direct control of an equitable portion of the means of production and they can never by monopolized by the rich, governments, corporations or whatever. The intentional suppression of this biblical and natural right by capitalism is at the foundation of MUCH of the violence and misery that plagues our modern world. Its basis in greed is in direct violation of God’s Jubilee principle of sharing natural resources equitably. And while capitalism may exceed the productivity of socialism and communism, Jubilee type systems have proven to be WAY more productive than capitalism has been and at the same time able to almost completely eliminate extreme poverty. This is not just a utopian theory. It’s been demonstrated in many places and really has worked in both ancient and modern times.

I have written some articles on this and part of a book and continue to update them as I have time. An excerpt is below with more details. But, it's easier to read it at this website:

http://www.eslmission.org/resources.php?id=5

See the file "The Bible, America's founders and redistribution of wealth” especially part 2A on pages 5-13 and especially the section on land rent/jubilee. Below is the most important part of what I wrote.

God bless in your important research,
Bryan Bissell

What 7 Principles Does The Bible Teach About Redistribution Of Wealth?
Does the Bible have anything to say about this issue that can enlighten us? Does history give us any lessons?
As you read the below ideas (and especially if you read the longer attachment), I believe you will come to understand as I did just a few years ago, that the Bible strongly advocates principles that can ONLY fit under the category of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor and/or preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Some are at the governmental level. Some are at the personal level. But, BOTH types are very critical if we wish to experience the NUMEROUS economic blessings that God promised in places such as Deuteronomy 28. When people’s biblical economic rights are violated and they are stuck in grinding poverty with no hope of escape, it causes MANY to decide to get involved in crimes, terrorism or even war to right the terrible injustices (see the research study at the end of the longer article for solid proof of that). Violating people’s natural economic rights causes tremendous expenses in terms of police, lawyers, court trials, judges, jails, rehabilitation, insurance, security and many other things. So, we basically have two choices:
A) Follow God’s principles and redistribute wealth fairly and justly to other human beings both through government and individual methods as the Bible teaches and gain the many benefits that God has promised us if we do that or
B) Spend massive amounts of money on jails, courthouses, trials, security cameras, and other non-human things to try to stop the crimes and wars and violence that results from disobeying God’s economic instructions. But, even these efforts will ultimately fail since you will never be able to end violence by people who have nothing to lose anyway and who are angered by injustice.

What are the principles of God that support redistribution of wealth? Briefly here are just a few (there are others as well). In the interest of brevity this section mostly deals with Bible verses. For confirmations from many deep thinkers and reasons why they are important check the longer article with extra details start with Part 2B:

1. !!!GOD CREATED NATURAL RESOURCES—WE MUST SHARE THEM EQUITABLY (govt. principle)
The Bible states that it is a sacred right for land to be shared by all people equitably. Land and natural resources have been the source of most wealth throughout history (food, lumber, gold, oil, steel, etc.). So, this principle is focused on sharing the foundations of wealth. Ethical free enterprise, business and wealth were honorable and not sins in the Bible. But, there must be a foundation of equal opportunity through shared natural resources. Communist perverted this into forcing all to have equal wealth instead of equal opportunity as God instructed.

God took land from the rich Canaanites and redistributed it to Israel equitably (He also assigned land to other nations that was not to be taken from them). He stated that the land of each family MUST NEVER BE SOLD to others and must ALWAYS stay in the same tribe. This directly blocked the monopolies of land and extreme concentration of wealth and poverty that are so oppressive and that cause so much suffering in our world today and that are destroying the middle class in many countries currently. This policy existed in BOTH the theocracy and the monarchy…all through the Old Testament and hints of it in the New Testament as well as God using it in heaven. Here are 2 Bible verses on the subject (in the long version, there are dozens of verses on this).
“23 “The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me. 24 “With every purchase of land you must grant the seller the right to buy it back. 28 …In the jubilee year{every 50th year}, the land must be returned to the original owners so they can return to their family land.” Leviticus 25 (the rest of the chapter explains that property in towns can be bought and sold permanently, except for the property of the Levites which they can always buy back).

“None of the territorial land may pass from tribe to tribe, for all the land given to each tribe must remain within the tribe to which it was first allotted...9 No grant of land may pass from one tribe to another; each tribe of Israel must keep its allotted portion of land.” Numbers 36:7,9

It is not only the Bible that advocated sharing nature. Many great thinkers from numerous perspectives have advocated this idea. In fact there are very few ideas anywhere on the planet that have more agreement by people from such vastly different perspectives than on this idea that it is just basic justice to share natural resources equitably. Here are just a few (See the section the “Quotes by Famous Thinkers and Experts…” section in Part 3 for a list of MANY people who support these ideas):
Famous Thinkers Who Advocate Sharing Nature

· ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “The land, the earth God gave to man for his home, sustenance and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water”

· VOLTAIRE (atheist): "The fruits of the earth are a common heritage of all, to which each man has equal right."
· THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826), author of the Declaration of Independence and with Ben Franklin the most inventive and intellectual of the Founding Fathers, wrote, "The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and to live on... Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. Everyone may have land to labor for himself, if he chooses; or, preferring the exercise of any other industry, may exact for it such compensation as not only to afford a comfortable subsistence, but wherewith to provide for a cessation from labor in old age." (Notes on Virginia, 1791)

· DR. SUN YAT SEN (1866-1925), father of modern China, wrote, "The teachings of Henry George will be the basis of our program of reform... The (land tax) as the only means of supporting the government is an infinitely just, reasonable, and equitably distributed tax... The centuries of heavy and irregular taxation for the benefit of the manchus have shown China the injustice of any other system of taxation."

· CONFUCIUS (BC 551-479), Chinese philosopher, said, "When the Great Way prevailed, natural resources were fully used for the benefit of all and not appropriated for selfish ends... This was the Age of the Great Commonwealth of peace and prosperity."

Mirabeau the Elder (1715-1789)
Land rent would be a "social advance equal to the inventions of writing and money."

Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)
"Who can or who could sell us the earth? Actually the earth belongs to these two: the almighty God and all his children who have ever worked on it or who will ever have worked on it or who will ever have to work on it. No generation of men can or could with even the highest solemnity and exertion sell the earth according to any other principle."

Horace Greeley (1811-1872) abolitionist
"Whenever the ownership of the soil is so engrossed by a small part of the community that the far larger part are compelled to pay whatever the few may see fit to exact for the privilege of occupying and cultivating the Earth, there is something very much like slavery."

Nations Where Sharing Natural Resources Eliminated Extreme Poverty
Many nations and tribes in history have followed this principle with great success including for example many native American Indians. When they followed this idea well, the extreme poverty that is so common in our time was almost completely unknown. There is another system very similar to Jubilee called “Land Rent” or “The Single Tax” (advocated most famously by author Henry George) that follows the same principle as Jubilee does. Since all nature was created by God, we all have a right to it. To divide land equitably as Jubilee requires would require almost a war it seems. . Land Rent achieves equitable distribution of land by eliminating ALL taxes except taxes of 10-15% on natural resources. This gives a strong incentive to owners to sell anything that they are not using productively and so land is distributed quite equitably in this way. Those who use natural resources for their exclusive benefit must pay for that privilege and this funds the government, education, hospitals and other development programs. Land Rent and Jubilee have been tested many times in ancient and recent history and have caused economies to skyrocket past the best performances of capitalism. I’ll speak more of this in the future, but here are a couple examples of what this system which also follows Bible principles was able to produce.
1) TAIWAN: When Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan in the 1940s, people were very poor and hungry. 20 rich families monopolized the entire island. General Chiang implemented the system of land rent. The rich soon realized that owning land that you weren’t using was very unprofitable and sold it quickly at cheap prices to farmers and businessmen. The new owners worked hard and within 10 years, the countries debts were paid off, hunger was ended and the economy began to skyrocket. Taiwan set world records with 10% per year GDP growth and 20% in their industry. (Fred Harrison, Power in the Land, 1983) By comparison, Korea’s GDP growth in 2005 was 3.5% (http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200512/kt2005122021361211860.htm). So land rent can produce an economy three times better than capitalism.

2) KOREA/JAPAN/ASIAN TIGERS: In the last few decades many of the Asian tiger roared to the top of the world economy. These success stories began on a firm footing of land reform. The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Over 80% of Hong Kong’s budget for a long time came from Land Rent taxes (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world's best city for business and the freest for residents. Douglas MacArthur strongly promoted Land Rent concepts in Japan and Korea after World War 2 and in less than 50 years both countries have risen from massive devastation to be consistently ranked in the top 15 economies in the world in spite of their small size!

3) CALIFORNIA: In the 1890s in California, one man Henry Miller owned 1,000,000 acres of land. Miller could travel from Mexico to Oregon and spend every night on his own land. California started following land rent and Miller realized he would be poor if he kept all that unused land. He sold the land to over 7,000 independent farms and California became the "bread basket of America" and is equivalent to the 5th largest economy in the world.

Why does sharing nature work effectively to eliminate poverty and improve the economy? There are many reasons, but here are 3:
1) Sharing natural resources gives everyone hope and equal opportunity! All have land or natural resources or opportunities to work with and can make a decent living from that. They can build up their finances and follow their dreams where they lead instead of being stuck in economic slavery all their lives. If more people have hope and opportunity, then society will be all that more productive and wealthy. If people don't have hope, they won't have passion or dedication to their job and there are many negative consequences that go with that.

2) Since everyone has opportunities, the envy and jealousy factors drop dramatically. This creates peace and reduces crime and other factors since people are occupied taking advantage of their opportunities.

3) Since you have resources and materials to work with and since the improvements on the land aren’t taxed, just the land itself, there is a strong incentive to make improvements on buildings and a huge natural incentive for people to produce and create more wealth with the resources that they own and have access to.

Here’s an excerpt from a site that explains how sharing natural resources can help solve an incredible number of problems (from http://www.answersanswers.com/html/panacea_.html)
================
Nearly every problem comes down to control of resources
The world economy is based on a fight for absolute control of resources. Land rent makes us all pay the fair price. This changes the world at its foundations.
Some panaceas are real
Panaceas are not fashionable. We are supposed to say “there are no easy answers.” But sometimes there are easy answers, simple ideas that make everything better. Some panaceas include:
· Law - this allows people to plan ahead and build comforts. Without law, life is nasty, brutal and short.
· Trade - this is the fastest way to create wealth, and changed the world from iron age farming to advanced civilization.
· Democracy - this has been a very successful way to get wealth, peaceful and ethical societies.
Land rent is perhaps the greatest panacea of all, because it makes the big three panaceas even more effective:
· Law - law favors the rich. Land rent gives everyone an equal chance to become rich.
· Trade - land rent increases trade by bringing more land into the market and making everyone work for their money.
· Democracy - poverty is the enemy of democracy because it makes people ignorant, desperate, easily threatened, and unable to compete with well funded parties. Land rent attacks poverty at its root.
Anyone who wants to solve the world’s problems must start with the most basic issues. There is nothing more basic than land. If we get the economics of land right, then employment, justice, wealth, and equality all follow naturally

Examples of how land rent fixes everything
The following are the main news items from the last few months (this is written in November 2005). In every single case, land rent would either solve the problem or make it much better.

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc.
Natural disasters hurt the poor the most. Poor countries have poor buildings, poor communication, poor preparation, poor short term responses, poor infrastructure, and so on. If an earthquake or flood hits a rich country, hundreds die. If a “natural” disaster hits a poor country, millions die. It is poverty that kills, not the earthquake or hurricane or flood. Land rent attacks the real problem, poverty

Plane crashes and other man-influenced disasters
Poor countries have the worst safety records. Once again, land rent solves the problem by solving poverty.

AIDS and other diseases
The same principle as above. The biggest factor in whether you die is your income. The real problem is poverty,

Political incompetence
Even in rich countries, mistakes are made. Often it appears that the wrong person was in the top job. Either they were not a good leader, or they were in the wrong job, appointed by someone who was not a good leader. As explained elsewhere, land rent gives us better leaders.

The Iraqi constitution
The Iraqi opposition fears that increased autonomy means the oil-rich states can keep wealth instead of sharing it with oil-poor regions. With land rent, the value of all land is, in effect, equalized. So no region has an advantages over another region simply because it sits on an oil field.

Israel and Palestine
If land rent was applied between Israel and Palestine, Israel would have no economic benefit in occupying the prime land, and Palestinians would find their standard of living raised. With less desire to grab territory and fewer desperate unemployed youths, the Israel-Palestine problem would be solved, or at least improved beyond all recognition.

Secret service scandals
Control of resources decides wars and policies, control of resources decides wealth and poverty, control of resources decides justice and misery, control of resources involves trillions of dollars taken from the poor and given to the rich. That is why land rent, the just allocation of resources is vastly more important than any silly games over who said what. In comparison, the whole existence of the CIA and other secretive organizations is irrelevant and probably counter productive by creating distrust.

Terrorism
The annual death toll from terrorism (even if we include the one-off event of the twin towers) is much lower than the annual death toll from road accidents, heart disease, gun crime, or a hundred other things. So terrorism should be a lower priority But if we do ant to tackle it, land rent is the answer. Practically all terrorists (including religious terrorists) are motivated by land control. They want land, or they don’t want foreigners controlling their land. With land rent, nobody can control any land without paying the local people a large price in cash. With land rent, al the anger is diffused. How can you be angry at someone who pays you huge sums of money? The religious extremists will still be angry, but they rely on the common people for sympathy. Land rent removes their support.

Aggressive land grabs
If we have land rent, whoever occupies the land must pay the full market rate for depriving others of its use. Aggressive thugs cannot afford to occupy land, tanks or no tanks.

Tyrants
With land rent, tyrants cannot come to power - all tyrants rely on economic injustice to give them popular support. And with land rent, tyrants are more easily removed (see the page on saving the world for details.)

Murderers and rapists
Whenever a mass murderer is caught, investigations show that there were plenty of warnings that were missed. People ignore the warnings because they know that if they acted on every hint then a lot of innocent people would be falsely suspected. Most important, those people could lose their jobs. But land rent changes the rules. With land rent there are more jobs, so you don’t have to be so afraid of saying no to someone who might be innocent. You can afford to be more cautious, because the economy is stronger.

Illegal immigrants
With land rent there is no black economy because there is no tax avoidance. There is no problem with allowing in more immigrants, because everyone who uses resources pays their way, and besides, jobs are cheap to create. So the problems associated with illegal immigrants disappear.

And so on.
We could go on and on. It should be clear by now that land rent can make any problem improve. Land rent really is the universal panacea.
Too good to be true?
These may seem like bold claims. But remember that the difference between success and failure is often very small. The difference between survival and starvation is often just a few calories. The difference between war and peace is often just a few votes. The difference between chaos and security is just a little bit more trust. The difference between recession and economic boom is just a few percentage points. Land rent makes just a modest difference, but it makes the difference that counts.
=============
Websites For Further Research On Land Rent
http://www.answersanswers.com/html/practice.html (very good explanations and how to implement it)

http://www.progress.org/geonomy/ Many useful links such as:
http://www.progress.org/geonomy/geono05.htm (28 examples of land rent in history)
http://www.progress.org/geonomy/ esp. the 101 famous thinkers who recommend the land tax..one for example said:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem0.htm The land rent remedy explained.

http://www.ied.info/books/ed/synopsis.html (This book gives well researched details on how to end poverty in 10 years. Chapter 24 is on the land problem. Also see: http://www.ied.info/books.html

http://www.landreform.org/reading0.htm Summary of the Biblical basis for this idea.

http://www.progress.org/geonomy/thinkers.html and http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/georgism_01.html (quotes from many famous thinkers on this subject. a long list of quotes on the subject)

http://www.earthrights.net/

Bryan

Thank you for your substantive post! It represents much research and reflection and I appreciate your generosity with their results.

I agree that every economic system needs some way of redistributing at least some of its wealth to prevent the difference between the rich and the poor from becoming great enough seriously to hurt both.

As you say, the Biblical Year of Jubilee seems to have been designed to accomplish this. Some doubt that it was ever implemented; however, even if this is so, the soundness of its principle remains.

Here are some possible logistical problems:

1. The very expression "redistribution of wealth" causes many people in the United States to cringe with horror before they've had a chance thoughtfully to consider what is being said. This makes communication very difficult!

2. Although land rent would be one of the ways of accomplishing this, there may be others as well. Which to choose, especially in a secular culture, is an interesting question. Presumably the case would have to be made on both Biblical and secular grounds.

3. Once we have decided on the best method, how can we get from here to there without causing more problems than we already have?

I have sometimes thought that progressive taxation is a way of accomplishing the principle the Year of Jubilee embodies.

I would be interested in what you think about this.

Here is a link to our related discussion at this Web Site on "Milton Friedman: Master of Disaster?"

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2008/12/30/milton_friedm...

Thanks again!

Dave

Utopia... No - Reality... Yes

Hi Bryan Bissell,

Thanks for your link to http://www.ied.info/books that you posted 04 January 2009 at 10:43

After reading your comments about

>> "the 2 sided argument between
>> A) capitalism and
>> B) socialism/communism"

my "very 1st thought" was, GREAT, now the Year of Jubilee is being associated with the "good" aspects of capitalism and the "good" aspects of communism and the elimination of private ownership of property... i.e., lawful accumulation and possession of "immense wealth"...

Instead, the "redistribution of wealth" is now a societal good... because the bible says so... according to some people... who may or may not be Christians.

You mention Karl Marx, who of course was not a Christian...

However, this GREAT economic and social "THINKER" was a leech... who, because he was so busy "THINKING" great thoughts could not provide for his family... so he appealed to the Federal Gov... uh... he appealed to his wealthy associates to help him financially.

The true benefits of freedom to use capital (i.e., "capitalism) that encourages exploration, taking a chance to succeed with great profit, is now being balanced with the hypothetical "good" benefits of communism... the "idea" of the commune that says we all share the wealth and none can own "private property" in the commune...

... this is not the essence of the Year of Jubilee.

You say about the book “Economic Democracy”,

>> It helped me understand
>> how capitalism ignores
>> critical aspects of Biblical economics and
>> how that is the foundation
>> of much of the misery and suffering
>> of millions and billions in our modern world.

My question -

Bryan, after looking at the titles of the other collectivist "type" of books at http://www.ied.info/books, does the book “Economic Democracy” hit equally hard against commune(ism)... collective(ism)... social(ism)... progressive(ism)... communitarian(ism)... and any other "ism" that is coming down-stream from the up-stream fountain of knowledge where the "elite" social thinkers of world society seem to hang out?

Saying "...(But, of course communism is worse)" than capitalism is not sufficient balance in the effort to assign blame to a "system", it seems to me.

You say -

>> the Jubilee system and the Land Rent system are really
>> the only ethical and just economic systems and
>> they take the best aspects of communism and capitalism
>> and leave out the harmful aspects.

My question -

In what common sense is the Year of Jubilee, including the forgiveness of debt, compatible with the Land Rent efforts of Henry George in the 1880s, about 30 years after Karl Marx wrote the "Communist Manifesto" and the United Labor Party in the USA promoted George?

The text below this next URL is from the text below the Henry George picture with the United Labor Party world on his back... http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem5.htm

>> By 1886, seven years after Progress and Poverty was published, Henry George was an international celebrity.

>> New York City's United Labor Party drafted him as their Mayoral candidate in 1886. ...

>> Puck frequently lampooned George during this period.

>> Here he is depicted hefting the Labor world, with nothing more to stand on than cloudy "theories".

The people who were closest to Henry George and his new theories called them "cloudy theories" for a reason.

You gave this URL ( http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem0.htm ) as the place to understand what Henry George really meant about Land Rent...

I. Common Property in Land

>> "We must make land common property," Henry George declared.
>> Some of his followers felt that he had made a tactical mistake with that statement.
>> What did he mean by it?
>> Was he a "commonist"?

>> Land, by its very nature, is common property —
>> and our laws and traditions already go far toward recognizing it as such.

>> Henry George proposed that
>> the rent of land
>> should be paid to the community.

>> This payment would satisfy
>> the equal rights of all other members of the community --
>> without disturbing individual
>> title to land,
>> fixity of tenure and
>> undisturbed possession.

>> This method of making land “common property”
>> may also be called
>> “conditional private property in land”
>> (payment of rent to the community)
>> as opposed to “absolute private property in land”
>> (private collection of rent).

In addition to Henry George and his "commonist" aspect of Land Rent as being symbiotic to the biblical Year of Jubilee, you approvingly, it seems to me... please correct me if I'm reading your comment wrong, you approvingly quote Karl Marx and his understanding of the "means" of ownership of what is produced.

>> Karl Marx talked about the “means of production”
>> and Jubilee type systems directly ensure
>> that every person is in direct control
>> of an equitable portion of the means of production
>> and they can never by monopolized
>> by the rich, governments, corporations or whatever.

Then you add a personal comment -

>> The intentional suppression
>> of this biblical
>> and natural right
>> by capitalism
>> is at the foundation
>> of MUCH of the violence and misery that plagues our modern world.

My question -

Are you saying that capitalism, is the means of the "intentional suppression" of a biblical AND natural right?

Are you saying that communism is the "solution" to the "intentional suppression" of a "natural right"...?

... the "natural right" of the FREE person to use private capital to increase his private income... by providing goods or services for which the recipient is willing to exchange private property, i.e., money?

How about replacing "capitalism" with "communism" instead... for a truly historical conclusion?

Where is your equally hard hitting critique of the idiocy of communism that presupposes the "elimination of private property" otherwise it is not an equal opportunity commune(ist) society?

The "elimination" of property ownership and control with "Land Rent" is not symbiotic with the Year of Jubilee... and the elimination of debts.

You conclude your capitalism comments with -

>> Its basis in greed
>> is in direct violation
>> of God’s Jubilee principle
>> of sharing natural resources
>> equitably.

My question –

Where is your equally hard hitting critique of communism and “direct violation” of the Year of Jubilee principle of “sharing” natural resources, you need to explain this better… and the very happy day of the biblical elimination of debt?

And... how about FREEDOM?

Does sharing natural resources "equitably" include having the same size of house so nobody uses more space than the neighbors?

Or, will people in the UTOPIA of Land Rent,

... at least the "Land Rent" that is symbiotic with the "best" of capitalism and symbiotic with the "best" of communism,

... still be "FREE" to have and additional guest room
... or 2
... and a home office room
... or 2
... and a game room
... and a 2
... or 3
... or 4
... or 5 car garage
... with a separate garage to house the 26ft RV
... and
... well, have however big a house they want?

Does sharing natural resources "equitably" include having the same size of car... truck... plane... so nobody has more "stuff" than the neighbor?

Or, will people in the UTOPIA of the "equal" distribution of resources be FREE to have as many vehicles as they want and can afford with their own funds that they lawfully acquired and accumulated?

These are not "silly" questions... they are very common sense questions that inquiring minds would like answered...

... because these common sense questions are being asked about the "silly" anti competition and pro "redistribution of wealth" effluent that the so-called up-stream elites are sending down-stream, using the main stream media and intellectual outlets such as magazines and internet web sites.

You conclude with common sense and historically true points about the superiority of capitalism in producing "stuff"... but then you segue into the area of the ethereal... the "elimination" of poverty... and say that is symbiotic to the Year of Jubilee.

>> And while capitalism
>> may exceed the productivity
>> of socialism and communism,
>> Jubilee type systems have proven
>> to be WAY more productive
>> than capitalism has been
>> and at the same time able to
>> ... almost
>> ... completely
>> ... eliminate
>> ... extreme poverty.

>> This is not just a utopian theory.

My comment -

To put "almost" and "completely" together with "Jubilee type systems" in not only not persuasive, it is definitely not convincing… and because it does not eliminate poverty, the stated goal of a collectivist society, that makes it utopian… it seems to me

What I mean is that even the biblical Year of Jubilee was not designed to eliminate poverty, extreme or otherwise, because it could not undo human nature...

... the reason people got into debt in the first place... and then were freed on the wonderful day of jubilee in the wonderful Year of Jubilee.

You wrote -

>> Land Rent achieves
>> equitable distribution of land
>> by eliminating ALL taxes
>> except taxes of 10-15% on natural resources.

>> This gives a strong incentive
>> to owners to sell anything that they are not using productively
>> and so land is distributed quite equitably in this way.

>> Land Rent and Jubilee have been tested many times
>> in ancient and recent history
>> and have caused economies to skyrocket past the best performances of capitalism.

My question -

1 - To which tests are you referring?

2 - If the tests were "skyrocket" successful, to which economies are you referring.

3 - Why are "ancient and recent history" economies not being held up as economic models that the USA can adopt the "better" economic model... better than the "best" so far?

Bryan, I agree with you 100% on the "best" aspects of capitalism and communism... I have thought of them myself over the years... I just have not felt the need to write about them as you have...

And here I would like to give you a public and "verbal" internet pat on the back for your comments about the idea of Land Rent and how you understand that it is symbiotic with the biblical Year of Jubilee.

_________________________

My take on the "best of" aspects are similar yet different from yours... this is what I mean... briefly.

The real world aspect of Land Rent and the effort to eliminate the "bad" aspects of capitalism and communism are commendable, of course.

My point, however, is that using the utopian "idea" of the elimination of poverty, extreme or not, is not symbiotic with the Year of Jubilee... and the elimination of debt.

Human nature being what it is, the Year of Jubilee was not designed to eliminate ANY poverty at all... EVER... that's why there WAS a Year of Jubilee, right"... because even good people get into trouble financially.

However the Year of Jubilee definitely was designed to eliminate debt... hallelujah, right?

Now, from the real world this side of the resurrection to the real world "after" the resurrection.

Biblically speaking, the earth is ours... all humanity "owns" the earth equally... right?

This is THE "perfect" and "BEST" commune, isn't it?

This is the ONLY sense in which I love the word "commune" and it's unity of equality.

However, the attempt to "get back to Eden"... this side of the resurrection... is definitely UTOPIA... (Greek "ou", not + Greek "topos", place)... there is NO SUCH PLACE.

This is the fundamental fallacy of world communism and the efforts of any "ism" that seeks to equalize world society in an "equal distribution of natural resources" world.

This is definitely UTOPIA... if this is what people are looking for, they have found it already... in the "idea"... and never in the reality...

... at least, it will not be real until the wonderful resurrection morning... of which Jesus is the first fruits.

So, other than the utopian "new man" efforts of the Nazis and the utopian "new world order" of the communists et al, I have nothing against the "idea" of a collectivist society.

The real world problem I have with the "collectivist" efforts to "eliminate competition" and outstanding success in life is that the "idea" of collective(ism), the "commune" and it's unity of equality this side of the resurrection, impinges on my FREEDOM... to fail AND to succeed... to acquire private property beyond my daily needs... so ONLY I have the FREEDOM to distribute MY property... if and when I want to.

After all is said and done, what EXACTLY will we will have after the earth is burned up with the "fervent heat" that Peter mentions?

Well, first the Earth will be renewed AFTER the return of Jesus and AFTER we are resurrected from the dust of the earth.

Then, the whole Earth will be ours again when the god of this age is no more... and death... the last enemy... is no more... forever... hallelujah, right?

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

In the late 1930's I attended for two years a Madison satellite academy. They decided that every one would be paid the same 10 cents a hour, regardless of the position and education and skills involved as this was the "communist" idea of the NT practice.

How long do you think it would take to equalize everyone? What would be the incentive to study for years to receive better education if the end results would be that no matter what you did, no one would receive more for his labor?

Isn't that the great equalizer praised as "Christian communism" practiced in the early church? Does anyone recommend that concept be followed? Why not have the government responsible for payrolls and no person received more pay than another?

Regarding allocation of land, who decides the "original owners"? Didn't the native American Indians fell that the land was given to all of them? They knew nothing of "private property." Israel will forever be in a struggle because they claim that their god gave them the land forever, which is likely the oldest claim of any country; certainly with the oldest "title." In England, most of the landed gentry and records going back thousands of years left most of it in the hands of a few. On what basis, other then victory over others, did they acquire the land?

Simple economists recall the old saying: "Buy land, they ain't making it anymore."

Hi Dave,
Glad to share since I’ve been the recipient of much generosity myself :) and thanks for your response. It's great to see an author active in the discussions! I often think that sermons should be like this..with the presentation and then a discussion time afterwords ;)! Yes, EGW has a number of comments on the importance of a good and fair balance between the rich and the poor and how if Jubilee was followed, it would solve many of the modern national economic problems we have.

The Bible has several verses which make it seem that Jubilee was implemented. How much of the time? I don’t know. But, the story of Naboth for example shows us that it was in force at that time and violated and God condemned Ahab because of violating it…so it can be argued that since even at that late date it was in force, it was in force for much of Israel’s history. A similar philosophy, Land Rent, has been implemented in modern times with phenomenal results. It’s even being used in China currently…and contributes to their roaring growth.
1) Yes, it is true that Americans have been conditioned to think that redistribution of wealth is immoral and socialist. I’ve dealt with MANY cases like that in debates and it is very difficult to break through the massive amount of propaganda that people have been indoctrinated with. But, if I give real examples and results and show the fact that this actually is a lot cheaper and more beneficial than the alternatives..with time, many people come to see the “light” :). But, it takes time to help people see the difference between Jubilee/Land Rent and socialism. I actually got banned from a yahoo group last year because the leader couldn't understand the difference and refused to think beyond the propaganda...sad. But, many I've talked to have with time seen the difference and come to agree. Tolstoy wrote "People do not argue with the teachings of George, they simply do not know it. And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.” (George was one of the leading proponents of Land Rent in the 1800s).

2) Land rent is not the only way to do this I’m sure. But the principle on which both Land Rent and Jubilee are based, sharing of natural resources equitably, must not be ignored. I assume that God’s way of Jubilee is best…but I don’t know how to implement Jubilee without causing wars or tons of violence. So, land rent seems the most practical at present. More importantly, it has been shown to work in numerous places including non-Christian countries and numerous experts and philosophers from all perspectives agree with it being the only just system. So, it’s not hard to make a case for it on secular grounds. It’s been done already by many people who I do not think are Christians.
3) Changing to a land rent system is very very simple and has been done many times. It has been done in some American cities and in the entire state of California actually. See my file for more details on that.

Progressive tax is better than flat tax and other kinds of taxes in my opinion, but it still ignores the fundamental and critical principle of Jubilee and land rent, the equitable distribution of natural resources…which Marx called the “means of production”. This cannot be ignored. If it is…there will be tragic results.
God bless,
Bryan

Hi Art,
Thanks for your extended comments :). I’m sorry for not being as clear as I should have been (but if you read about Taiwan and Korea or went to my file online it should have been clear that I don’t support the abolition of private property). Jubilee/land rent are diametretically opposed to the elimination of private property in communism which is one of communism’s greatest evils. Also, I was not and am not at all advocating Karl Marx theories in the least. He did identify the problem with some accuracy, but his solution very anti-biblical in many ways. The good that is sort of in communism that I was referring to was the idea that everyone has enough to provide themselves with the basics of life, food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. If you’ve seen the recent movie Sicko…well, America and it’s capitalism aren’t doing very well at that.
Please don’t associate the books I recommended with collectivism as most Americans understand it. This is a straw man and while I know it’s difficult for most Americans to separate communism from Jubilee/Land Rent, etc. due to the McCarthian scares and much other propaganda…you will never understand what is really being said here unless you read deeply enough to see the vast differences. Economic democracy is not at all in favor of abolishing private property as you assume. Communitarianism is something I’m just learning about which looks quite good in many respects, but right wing conservative critics are spouting all kinds of falsehoods about it. In the last few years, I’ve come to the point where the right wing critics do not have much more honesty or credibility than the National Enquirer.
Land Rent and Jubilee are both based on the same foundation that natural resources must be distributed equally in a private property ownership type of way.
Common property means that all natural resources belong to society. But, this does not rule out private property as you unfortunately assume. It means that if any individual wants to own or more precisely lease the land for his personal profit, he pays a tax to society for that privilege. That tax is used for the benefit of all. But, the individual keeps ALL the profits after that land tax. No other taxes are allowed. It is a tremendous incentive for development. .
Yes, I’m explicitly saying that capitalism at it’s foundation is an intentional suppression of biblical and natural economic rights. It suppresses the right of every individual to have ownership of an equitable part of nature and this is the fundamental reason why capitalism has caused such disaster on one end and such extreme concentrations of wealth on the other. No, I’m NOT saying that communism is the solution. Please read what I have written MUCH more carefully. I haven’t done a lot to criticize communism since it’s been discredited by others very thoroughly already.
Regarding the canceling of debts. Read “Economic Democracy” for much more on why this is very helpful for our world and how many countries have already done it either arbitrarily or as a gift from their lenders.
No, I did not ANYWHER say that elimination of private property is symbiotic to the year of Jubilee. They are anti-thetical concepts that I never said were complimentary. Also,no, sharing natural resources equitably does not force you to have the same size house. How you use the resources is up to you. Please Art…read more accurately and in depth before you ask questions like this and make very untrue assumptions that land rent has anything to do with communism and forcing equal wealth. A simple difference between land/rent jubilee and communism is that land rent/jubilee requires that everyone have equitable opportunity. Communism forces everyone to have equal wealth. The difference is extremely vast.
Land rent has eliminated extreme poverty in entire nations. See my Taiwan example. Jubilee and other Bible principles WERE designed to eliminate poverty. See Deuteronomy 15:4. Following some of these principles the early church (See Acts 2 and 4) also eliminated poverty among them and this is probably more pertinent for us.
Some of the demonstrations of Land Rent that I am referring to are in my file and more can be found here: www.progress.org/geonomy (the 28+ cases where land rent has worked section). Taiwan and Korea both skyrocketed in their economies. Why are these not being held up in the USA? As always, the managers of state and wealthy don’t want people to know their rights and they want to keep on siphoning off massive amounts of wealth. Internet is making that a lot more difficult though.
You have some interesting ideas on your “take” on the best aspects at the end. I can see you have thought through some of these things and I commend you for those efforts. But, I think you need to read a lot more on what EGW says and what the Bible says and what Land Rent really is. You have a lot of filters due to American education that are causing you to miss very essential and critical aspects. I do not take any credit for these ideas myself by the way. Not one bit. I’ve just done a lot of reading from many sources that helped me understand these truths and more importantly helped me understand why the Bible economic principles are so fundamentally critical for us to understand today. It also took me a long time to realize that much of what I had been taught was just completely anti-thetical to the Bible’s principles. Forgive me for being a bit blunt above…but this is a really serious issue to me. 1 child is dying every 3 seconds at present. Many wars are being fought. Tragedy is everywhere…and from my study the #1 cause after the fact of everyone having the disease of sin in their lives is the rejection of God’s system of economics.
I know Americans have this big thing about freedom. But, the freedom that the Bible talks about doesn’t have much relation to the freedom that Americans talk about (and I’m American myself by the way). The Bible’s freedom is freedom from sin as I’m sure you’re aware. American’s think of it as whatever they wish to do. The problem with your concept of freedom is that if it doesn’t include the concept of equitable distribution of nature that is guaranteed to every generation, the freedom that capitalism advocates is actually a type of theft and violation of the rights of others and as a consequence the cause of crime, terrorism and war and much suffering. The Jubilee system was designed to eliminate poverty most definitely. But, it was not designed to ensure equal wealth. There is a very massive difference. And it and similar concepts work in spite of our human natures to do eliminate poverty and as a direct consequence to eliminate much violence and suffering that exist. If we have instituted the equitable distribution of natural resources…after that you are free to buy and sell the products of your labor freely as much as you wish, with ZERO taxes in land rent or very minute taxes (like 1-2%) in Jubilee.
Very true point about how the earth will be renewed and this earth burned up and how the whole earth will be ours again and Satan conquered and the righteous resurrected. That will be the day of billions of Hallelujah’s I agree.
See you too at the resurrection !!
Bryan

Ellen,
I don’t think the policy of paying people the same exact salary has anything to do with the Bible whatsoever. Neither does the idea that everyone should be equalized financially. These school leaders were very uninformed about Bible economics. Equal OPPORTUNITY IS a Bible principle. Equal WEALTH is not. The Christian communism of the early church was not enforced, it was voluntary as the Spirit led individuals. On the allotment of land, that’s the key problem with implementing Jubilee. Land rent solves that problem very easily. Jubilee requires God to divide the land as happened in Canaan or some very wise leaders and also requires depriving people of their land by force…while land rent preserves people’s freemarket freedoms and private property. The Indians had a great system too that might work well and in addition, the Indians were the pioneers of democracy…they had it 800 years before we did and many things in our democracy were borrowed from them..even some of the words in our constitution. The land in England was more equally distributedin the middle ages. But, the gentry made laws that confiscated the land from others…the book “Economic Democracy” linked above. explains how this happened in detail.
Bryan

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for your comments about "equitable" distribution and use of natural resources, yes, even the references to "right wing conservative critics"...

And, I say that kindly... picture us sitting at the proverbial kitchen table, and then I ask you

... uh, Bryan... are there "left" wing and "liberal" critics... who are antagonistic to the biblical Year of Jubilee while... who,at the same time... are for "equitable" and "redistribute the wealth" theories designed to right the economic wrongs of capitalism, as you have defined it?

Do you ipso facto put yourself in the "left wing" side of the "redistribute the wealth" camp by referring to the "right wing"...?

Well, yes...

... if you truly believe that "taking" a higher percentage of tax from your neighbor because their income is higher than yours is a societal "good" and is "better" than NOT taking a higher percentage of tax from them...

That's the "progressive tax" system that you say is better than other kinds of taxes...

Your comment -

>> Progressive tax is better than flat tax and other kinds of taxes in my opinion,
>> but it still ignores the fundamental and critical principle of Jubilee and land rent,
>> the equitable distribution of natural resources…
>> which Marx called the “means of production”.

Personally, if any kind of tax system is constitutionally "forced" on us, a flat tax of an "equal" percentage such as... oh, say 10%... that's biblical, 10% "equality" would definitely be "better" than the based on income "unequal" progressive tax of X % to XX %...

A 10 % flat tax would be soooo much better than the "unfair" progressive tax that we currently have in the USA... wasn't the "progressive tax" one of the planks of international Communism? It still is, isn't it?

Is the "progressive tax" included in what you termed one of the "best of" aspects of communism?

[ A quick side-bar Bryan,

this does NOT define YOU as "A Communist", my new "see you at the resurrection" friend...

... it simply means that you are still advocating for a policy that was, is and always will be antithetical to the US Constitution... "before" the 16th amendment... that, as you probably already know, has a questionable history... "sine die" and all of that debate.

end of side-bar ]

You referred to the bible -

>> Jubilee and other Bible principles WERE designed to
>> eliminate poverty. See Deuteronomy 15:4.

My biblical reference -

See Deuteronomy 15:11 -

>> For the poor will never cease to be in the land;
>> therefore I command you, saying,
>> 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and
>> poor in your land.'

In my understanding of the Year of Jubilee, BECAUSE human nature is what it is, there will ALWAYS be poor, as Jesus said in Mt. 26:11, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always"...

... however, the elimination of debt was to "always" help to rectify the "always" of poverty... even in the Promised Land...

To end on a very positive note with your words -

>> ... and from my study
>> the #1 cause after the fact of everyone having the disease of sin in their lives
>> is the rejection of God’s system of economics.

The "good" and profitable (...pun intended) debate should be framed as to how to "best" advocate for the inclusion "of God's system of economics" into world society... not for the system Karl Marx advocated...

The only "commune" and it's unity of equality for which I am advocating, is the "commune(ity)" of the "called out" church that Peter called

... the "Chosen Race"
... a "Royal Priesthood"
... a "Holy Nation"
... a "People For God's Own Possession"
... who "proclaim the excellencies of HIM who has called you out of darkness into HIS marvelous light"

Bryan, my new "see you at the resurrection" friend...

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hi Art,
Sorry for the late response. Had a week or so filled with deadlines and a couple emergencies.
---
... uh, Bryan... are there "left" wing and "liberal" critics... who are antagonistic to the biblical Year of Jubilee while... who,at the same time... are for "equitable" and "redistribute the wealth" theories designed to right the economic wrongs of capitalism, as you have defined it?
Do you ipso facto put yourself in the "left wing" side of the "redistribute the wealth" camp by referring to the "right wing"...?
Well, yes...if you truly believe that "taking" a higher percentage of tax from your neighbor because their income is higher than yours is a societal "good" and is "better" than NOT taking a higher percentage of tax from them...
That's the "progressive tax" system that you say is better than other kinds of taxes...
---
I don’t care so much about left and right as I do with being biblical. Both left and right have good aspects and evil aspects. I’m for the 3rd way, which is land rent/jubilee which takes the best parts of left and right and eliminates pretty much all the negatives.
---
Personally, if any kind of tax system is constitutionally "forced" on us, a flat tax of an "equal" percentage such as... oh, say 10%... that's biblical, 10% "equality" would definitely be "better" than the based on income "unequal" progressive tax of X % to XX %...
A 10 % flat tax would be soooo much better than the "unfair" progressive tax that we currently have in the USA... wasn't the "progressive tax" one of the planks of international Communism? It still is, isn't it?
Is the "progressive tax" included in what you termed one of the "best of" aspects of communism?
---
If everyone’s right to land is not preserved as it is under Jubilee/Landrent, then it is immoral theft of those who don’t possess natural resources to tax everyone at the same rate. A progressive tax is a lesser evil than a flat tax, but both are still immoral since they don’t recognize the principles and basic economic rights of every person that has been recognized by many of the world’s greatest thinkers. If the constitution doesn’t recognize the rights to land that the Bible teaches, then that part of it is immoral and unbiblical and unjust. A flat tax is NOT biblical at all if you ignore the rights to natural resources..it’s another way that the rich will siphon off the wealth of the poor and it’s immoral theft. ANY SYSTEM that doesn’t recognize this basic human right is immoral theft and is a direct cause of war, crime, terrorism and the deaths of millions of people including children around the world.

Please just stop with the associating my ideas with communism. You are misunderstanding it nearly every single time, so since it’s so hard for you to understand at this point, just from now on assume that my ideas have nothing to do with communism. The “best aspect” of communism that I was referring to to make it simple was that Marx saw the suffering of the poor and children around him that wa s a direct result of capitalism and he wanted to invent a system where this injustice wouldn’t exist. He had very good motives and ideals, but because he ignored the Bible’s principles just as the church immorally did, his system was also very destructive. ANY system that ignores God’s principles is going to be destructive to life, whether it’s on the left or on the right or frankly ANYWHERE. Economics is connected so deeply to many critical aspects of quality life. I know this from personal painful experience. I lost $100,000 due to immoral partners breaking a contract. It has ruined me financially for about 10 years. That financial ruin caused the ruin of my marriage for several years due to my wife’s poor upbringing and severe insecurities and it has also deprived me of much time that I wanted to spend with my daughter and it has damaged my families spirituality and opportunities to travel and see my family back in America and many other things. Economic injustice is devilish and demonic to put it mildly…and there are millions who have suffered worse than I have because people think that they can play around with economics and ignore God’s system just because it was in the Old Testament. I’m sorry but that also is a demonic idea. I’m sorry to be very blunt here, but it comes from very great pain. I’ve lived almost all of Job’s story in the Bible…except for losing my children in a storm. What has happened to me was evil and devilish…but the good thing that has come out of it is that I understand why God’s economics are so important..and God has blessed me by giving me a job in a very providential way that’s helping me slowly get out of the debt. But, not much will replace the 10 years of my life that have been ruined by economic unfairness. I wish that lesson could be drilled into every human being on the planet. The Bible speaks about economics even more than it does about prayer. That should give us a hint about how important it is to God.
---
... it simply means that you are still advocating for a policy that was, is and always will be antithetical to the US Constitution... "before" the 16th amendment... that, as you probably already know, has a questionable history... "sine die" and all of that debate.
---
Art, I don’t care DIDDLY about the constitution when it conflicts with the Bible or ignores critical Biblical principles from the Bible under it’s jurisdiction. The constitution was not, is not and never will be inspired. There’s a VAST difference between that document and the Bible. While I respect as having many good points, it is not in any way shape or form infallible and I will never treat it as such as many Americans do. The Bible teaches that sharing natural resources is critical. Anything that doesn’t teach that is very very lacking. The Bible teaches that governments can tax at a very low rate. Thus if the constitution doesn’t allow taxing, it’s also lacking and wrong there.
---
You referred to the bible -
>> Jubilee and other Bible principles WERE designed to eliminate poverty. See Deuteronomy 15:4.
My biblical reference -See Deuteronomy 15:11 -
>> For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'
In my understanding of the Year of Jubilee, BECAUSE human nature is what it is, there will ALWAYS be poor, as Jesus said in Mt. 26:11, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always"...
---
Art, do you believe that one Bible verse destroys another? I don’t think you do and I certainly don’t. Deuteronomy 15:11 does not destroy verse 4:
“There should be no poor among you, for the LORD your God will greatly bless you in the land he is giving you as a special possession.” Deuteronomy 15: 4
I am not sure how to reconcile them perfectly, but I am VERY VERY sure that the excuse of most Christians that you used above is not the right one because it just destroys verse 4. Also the early Christians in Acts accomplished the feat of having no poor among them and I believe there were a couple other times that the Jews also achieved that. It depends on what you mean by poor though. Poor can mean having less than others. It also can mean lacking the basic needs to survive or something similar. So, I take verse 4 to mean that there will be no hungry, homeless, etc. in your nation if you follow God’s principles, but that there will always be people with more and less money…thus some with be “poor” but still have enough for their basic needs, etc. I don’t know any other way to reconcile the 2 texts. But, destroying one or the other is not an option for me.
---
... however, the elimination of debt was to "always" help to rectify the "always" of poverty... even in the Promised Land...
To end on a very positive note with your words -
>> ... and from my study the #1 cause after the fact of everyone having the disease of sin in their lives
>> is the rejection of God’s system of economics.
The "good" and profitable (...pun intended) debate should be framed as to how to "best" advocate for the inclusion "of God's system of economics" into world society... not for the system Karl Marx advocated...
---
Again, I suggest that you just stop all comparisons between me and marx since you are consistently missing the point. I have ALWAYS from the very beginning been advocating God’s system of economics for our world society (or land rent…I assume that Jubilee is best, but I don’t know how to implement jubilee without causing a war and since Land rent seems to accomplish the same things as Jubilee and uses the same principles…and since God values life…that seems like the best one to use until Jubilee could be followed. Maybe Land Rent could be a transition step.)
---
The only "commune" and it's unity of equality for which I am advocating, is the "commune(ity)" of the "called out" church that Peter called
... the "Chosen Race"
... a "Royal Priesthood"
... a "Holy Nation"
... a "People For God's Own Possession"
... who "proclaim the excellencies of HIM who has called you out of darkness into HIS marvelous light"
Bryan, my new "see you at the resurrection" friend...
Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection
---
Art, here and in other places we fully agree! I’m sorry for being a little blunt in a couple sentences…but I’ve been hurt so demonically by economic justice and so I can feel the pain of millions much more than most Americans can. It is severe injustice of the worst kind to ignore the rights that God gave to them. It is akin to genocide. And yet so many Christians just blithely make arguments not realizing that the results are death for millions. I just can’t take that calmly. Maybe I should be a little more patient in my sharing…but when lives of many innocents are at risk…I don’t know how to be calm. I see that many of the prophets weren’t either and neither are even many atheists that I know who are active in trying to fight capitalism and it’s atrocious evils. Economic injustice as a Latin proverb says “is death in another form” and it should be considered as such by all Christians everywhere. It’s not just a surface inconsequential issue. If the focus of the Bible is correct, it is even more important than prayer because for many, if they don’t have economic security, they are not going to be caring ANYTHING about what we say to them in our witness regarding spiritual things. For whatever reason, God put it as a major emphasis of his, and if we are His children, so should we.
No hard feelings personally. I know that it takes time to get out of the indoctrination of our culture..and it took time for me. So, I understand that it will take time for any who hear me too…and I just pray that you can understand and start advocating it as soon as possible. Currently, 1 child is dying every 3 seconds as a result of our world ignoring God’s economics (and for some other reasons as well, but economics is the biggest factor).
God bless and I hope to see you in the air since I don’t expect this world to last long enough to see you in the resurrection :),
Bryan

Read Wm Blum's "ROGUE STATE" & John Tirman's "100 ways America is screwing up the world" to see how Capitalist America destroyed all attempts at social JUSTICE (ending world poverty) by killing millions & even using & teaching torture worldwide. But you also must realize that America built everything wrong (mostly cars, weapons, & small buildings) to "create jobs" (force people to work or starve so many starved). Now we can see that was the way of DEATH> And we should have built only safe TOWER cities connected to mag-lev Trains to save lives & the earth. Capitalists are evil murders of millions of children & deserve to die n their cars with their children. The world needs SOCIALISM God's perfect way. Capiitalism is slavery. Corporations are slave plantations & employees are slaves. The Great Depression of the 30's & now today are because all nations are connected financially, so what america does causes world poverty.

Read Wm Blum's "ROGUE STATE" & John Tirman's "100 ways America is screwing up the world" to see how Capitalist America destroyed all attempts at social JUSTICE (ending world poverty) by killing millions & even using & teaching torture worldwide. But you also must realize that America built everything wrong (mostly cars, weapons, & small buildings) to "create jobs" (force people to work or starve so many starved). Now we can see that was the way of DEATH> And we should have built only safe TOWER cities connected to mag-lev Trains to save lives & the earth. Capitalists are evil murders of millions of children & deserve to die n their cars with their children. The world needs SOCIALISM God's perfect way. Capiitalism is slavery. Corporations are slave plantations & employees are slaves. The Great Depression of the 30's & now today are because all nations are connected financially, so what america does causes world poverty.

The type of optimism behind the belief that the 'invisible hand' will serve best interests of all, optimism based on Smith's notion that we are at nature empathetic, is ludicrous, yes absolutely absurd quite and dangerous even if I do say so myself dear chap. By the same token, the optimism behind the idea that a socialist Government could rule fairly is also ludicrous. The poor we will always have no matter how hard we struggle, but against poverty we must struggle because to care and suffer with the welfare of the oppressed at heart is being in God and preparing for heaven.

I agree that both capitalism and socialism are very serious distortions of God's plan (socialism probably less so). But, the Bible states in Deuteronomy 15:4 that poverty (I believe this at a minimum refers to the elimination of starvation and homelessness) can be eliminated. AND it actually DID happen in several cases in the Bible such as that of the early church in Acts 2 and 4 and others. It has also happened at quite a few times in history outside the Bible including China, early America, Taiwan, many of the Indian tribes and other examples. What most people think is fantasy (the elimination of extreme poverty) has actually been accomplished and is not very difficult to achieve. The solution to the problem is in the Bible as well as other wisdom sources. Gandhi said that there is enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed. If you can get a nation to live according to this standard that has it's source in the Bible, poverty CAN and has been eliminated successfully and can be again. Capitalism institutionalizes and glorifies and sanitizes greed. So, as long as capitalism is the main economic engine, poverty is almost certain to exist. But, if you follow God's economics (or variations that follow the same basic principle of sharing natural resources with all), starvation and homelessness HAVE been and can almost ALWAYS be eliminated within a short time.
Bryan