Humans are innately selfish: we want what we want when we want it.
Only regulations, when properly executed and supervised, can control this desire. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when left to their own devices, humans are greedy and will strive to get all that is possible for themselves.

Now we are reaping the harvest of unfettered ambition and greed. The foxes have guarded the henhouses of Wall Street and the rating agencies have been bribed to give triple A ratings to the most egregious operations.

Watch or read the June 24th testimony of Wendell Potter, former senior executive of health insurance companies testimony to the U.S. Senate Committe on their internal operations. Most relevant now that the foremost agenda is health reform. These lobbyists for the insurance companies have become to powerful that they have prevented any negotiations with pharmaceutical companies for better prices; have been driven by their first consideration of showing a profit for their shareholders which is diametrically in opposition to the health consumers in their search of adequate health care.

He gives an example of the "purging": In October 2006 CIGNA notified members of one of the groups members in California and New Jersey would have to pay more than some earned in a year if they wanted to continue their coverage. The increase: some family-plan premiums would exceed $44,000 a year. CIGNA give the enrollees less than three months to pay the new premiums or go elsewhere.

This is only one example of the "free markets" that have almost destroyed our economic system.

David, you wrote:
"I believe that in recent years we have put too much emphasis on free markets and not enough on effective regulation and moral education and that we are now paying a very high price. We need a better balance."

You have summed up your thesis well in this one paragraph and its message needs to be shouted from the roof tops. The only way for free markets (ie capitalism) to succeed and endure is to have effective government regulation and moral education that is not didactic but taught in the form of modeled behavior.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I agree with the need for moral education.

The question becomes how the state of public schools might provide this from a neutral and secular perspective.

There is, first, the issue of content, i.e. that we should be concerned about the greater good and sacrifice our own well-being for the well-being of others.

Secondly, there is the issue of motivation. What would possibly motivate individuals of a culture to consistently do this?

A liberal government is limited in what it can proscribe to its citizens. This in the US is defined largely negatively, as no impeding on other people rights.

The state of our culture may say more about the failure of the church to inculcate these values in it's members and the failure of Chrisitans to live out sacificial lives.

"The only way for free markets (ie capitalism) to succeed and endure is to have effective government regulation and moral education that is not didactic but taught in the form of modeled behavior."

We don't have free markets, either here in the USA or in many other parts of the world

Hey, hey Spectrumites,

An in-depth article on a CNN host Fareed Zakaria to discuss economics? Spectrum had to search long and hard for that article!

How about turning to the Wall Street Journal where appears today two (2) articles covering Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate --

The first on the Opinion Page -- The Pope on "Love in Truth" -- the pope's discussion of the world's market economy -- and

The second in the Weekend Journal section -- "Vaticanomics: The Holy Father Tackles Globalization."

Like or hate the Wall Street Journal, these writers select important issues coming down the economic pipes, so to speak.

I have not yet seen the Wall Street Journal writers cover -- oh, what's his name -- Fareed Zakaria.

Jody ;)

Woops,

The Wall Street Journal has had three articles on the pope's Caritas in Veritate (or Charity in Truth).

The first one was earlier this week under the G-8 Summit page, titled,

"Pope Calls for a Group to Oversee World Markets" -- "United Nations and Other International Bodies Need 'Real Teeth' to Prevent Future Crises, Letter from Vatican Says."

So, Spectrumites . . . let's talk about what really is economically happening ;)

Jody ;)

Jody,

Since you express an interest in the current issues and the WSJ articles, I offer you a site and observation of the Cato Institute following the Catholic Bishops document of the early 80's.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=916&full=1

I have been observing for over 25 years. I have also been aware of Ludwig Von Mises Comment in "Human Action" that the RCC has never stood for free enterprise or markets but favored the "Facist" model MEANING "industry in private hands but controlled by government regulation to reach their social goals."(Not military component)

Mises escaped Germany and was an observer of the various economic concepts of the period shared by nations and religious thought. I offer this page of his book “Human Action” and suggest you notice the paragraph of footnote #8 as well as the footnote itself.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap24sec3.asp#p674

Interesting times indeed with much commonality between RCC and present practiced US economic theory.

Regards,
pat

That Adam Smith used the expresesion "invisible hand" only three times--once each in "The History of Astronomy," "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "Wealth of Nations"--is very important to me.

The idea that virtually on their own free markets produce and distribute goods and services in ways that benefit everyone has caused much hardship and loss of life. Yet the one to whom it is often attributed never taught it!

I have not yet had a chance to read the Pope's most recent remarks on this issue. I gather he emphasizes "justice" and the "common good." I will be intersted in what he says about economic freedom, if anything at all.

Even if large swaths of economic freedom are not sufficient, they are necessary. Otherwise, there will be less and less to distsribute justly and with which to serve the common good.

We need "liberty and justice for all" without making one more important than the other, it would seem. Their never ending interaction is what counts.

Here, then, is another example of irreducible moral complexity.

"By David Larson
I believe that in recent years we have put too much emphasis on free markets and not enough on effective regulation and moral education."

David

What "WE" are you referring to?

Alan Greenspan was mentored by Ayn Rand. She was his personal friend. Greenspan invited her to his 'swearing in' ceremony when he was appointed to his first post in the Nixon administration. Many in the Republican Party heap praise on Rand's philosophy. Clinton went along with Greenspan's advice. Clinton signed the Republican Congress' 1999 Graham-Leach-Bliley act which repealed many of the regulations which were put into force after the Great Depression.

Even though Greenspan, in his February, 2006 speech in the home town of Adam Smith (Kirkcaldy, Scotland), applauded Adam Smith as the discoverer of the principle called the Invisible Hand, the biographer James Buchan states that the fictional whore Moll Flanders in the writings of Daniel Defoe probably used the term Invisible Hand in a way that is more relevant to free-market capitalism than the three times Adam Smith used the term.

Smith is now a puppet. And a good one. Not many have read his writings. They are too ignorant to refute the baloney spewed out by the politicians. Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, McCain, etc would be impaled on the nearest sharp object if they referred to the atheist Ayn Rand as the source of their economic philosophy.

Theological professors would do well to actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and his other great work, the 1759 masterpiece (IMO) The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Then read Karl Marx's Das Kapital (not the abridged common version), followed by Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Adam Smith is similar to Karl Marx in the use of regulations. Both were attempting to come up with a societal formula to help ALL. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is leading the current right wing into a non-christian worldview of survival of the fittest. With the recent debacle in our economy and inequality in wealth I find it amazing that a single christian can, in good conscience, pull the proverbial 'lever' for a Republican. The carrot of Family Values is a classic bait-and-switch.

Keafan

As you indicate, the "we" is eupehmistic.

But even though the people you mention are primarily responsible for what went wrong, the rest of "us" are accountable for putting and keeping them in office.

I share your dismay at the Republican Party's direction for the last several decades. But I remind myself that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as were the parents of Martin Luther King, Jr. Indeed, for a long while the Republicans were better news for Blacks in the American South than the Democrats, especially the so-called Dixcrats.

So, I still have some hope for the GOP. Meanwhile, I wonder where the Democrats were at the build up to the Iraq war, the excessive deruglation in recent years and the steady erosion of our civil liberties. Have they no courage?

Yet, I do not believe in political dispair. In the long run, little choices have big consequences. That's why "we" should all pay attention, in my view.

Thanks for the excellent reading assignment. I've got it partly but not completely done.

And thank for writing! Doing so takes time and there is nothing more valuable because in principle time is the one thing we can never replace.

Dave

It is hard to have a free market when companies can attain monopoly control of critical goods. Once monopolies are a possibility, then the consumers have to prevent their downside.

There are several ways to do this - but all of them require regulation.

The trick is to set the regulations so that the result is still efficient utilization of the resources.

The troubles with using "morality" and "ethics" to set such policy is that historically the people defining these things have always done so IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST.

I am reminded, for instance, of

(a) patents - he who gets there first, wins. Even if the other guy would have got there only a few years later.

(b) indulgences - just pay me money, and you are morally okay

(c) nuclear weapons - we got 'em, but you can't

(d) CO2 emission - we are putting out a lot more than you, so what?

(e) Deforestation - we have already cut down our trees, so you shouldn't be allowed to cut down yours

etc. etc. etc.

/Bevin

Unless "We the People" know what is happening, we cannot begin to effect change.

Just as we are now "discovering" how the past administration lied and covered up their secretive spying on citizens, we cannot know
about the selling of derivatives and other junk bonds were allowed under deregulation. Now, the perpetrators are being rewarded with TARP funds while consumers continue to be gouged by the banks. It is always the little man who pays twice. History repeats itself.

Here's Sen. Grassley of Iowa on asked why most American can't receive the same quality of health insurance he enjoys:

"You can. Go work for the Federal Government."

I nominate him for the Marie Antoinette Award.

Dave,

What if we made these distinctions.

1)Regulation for the purpose of honest money, banking and "transparent" investment houses is needed because it protects the value of money which is "private property." This failure is the source of the present crisis. The crisis is in the "financial/banking arena" of Wall Street, The US TReasury policy and Federal Reserve Policy...as well as Congress and Fanny and Freddie.

This area has the rest of the economy by the throat and "blackmail" if you please.

2)Regulation through special interest taxation or legislation for the specific purpose of directing and controling private enterprise for a "political/societal purpose" is what "conservative/limited government" and "libertarians" primarily disagree with.(It is government in this area that often creates monopoly and allows special interest to have an unfair advantage in enterprise.)

They feel that aspect is best left to the individual business that is taking a risk and best knows the produce they are trying to sell.(I am refering not to labor laws that actually protect apart from labor unions "monetary demands.")

Regulation that treats all equally by equal laws in the pursuit of sound commerce and sound money should be desired by all.

regards,
pat

PS. Dave, You might want to relate this clip/link to #2 above and the "invisible hand."
http://books.google.com/books?id=-bsRX46ws1IC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=john+c...

"Zakaria is especially concerned about the decreasing devotion to the common good that he detects in all professions. He asks “that people steer themselves and their institutions with a greater reliance on a moral compass.”

The real crime is making the public responsible, (read average taxpayer) for the misdeeds of economic giants by requiring said taxpayers to bail out unsound businesses. In that respect it is the very keepers of the common good, (read congress) that screws the "common good"(read average taxpayer) by the misapplication of inputs to remedy the situation.
They seek to "save" the economy by burdening children who haven't even been born yet to pay for the mistakes of cats who are still engorged. And why not. The bearers of the greatest burden cant even vote yet. It is the most profound panderers solution, so much so even his democratic congress is balking.
If there was less common good financially, risk assessments would help assure careful business plans. If one knows the price of high risk failure is homelessness, high risk schemes become less favorable.
In interviews with Madoff victims I saw on TV that many of them said they lost their life savings and their homes when his ponzi scheme failed. What is average Joe citizen doing maxing out their mortgages and putting their life savings into investments? Yes, the poor will always be with us but so will the stupid apparently only now, the government has made stupidity of no consequence.
An ill wind has blown into the financial dealings of this country for a long time now. The moniker it goes by is "being to big to fail", which means even stupidity is rewarded by taxpayer dollars as we are witnessing now.

The government went after Ma bell for the common good and Bill gates for the common good.
Where were they when they let GM become to big to fail? When AIG controlled an unbelievable share of the insurance in this country, where was the keepers of the common good (congress)? Why were they allowed to become to big to fail? Dont do the ignorant thing and blame it all on Bush. AIG and GM were as big as Ma Bell and certainly as big as Bill Gates during Clintons watch, so dont even try to fly that kite here.

To often the economic woes are retold from a perspective that makes it seem as though the money "lost" has left the planet. Take the Madoff disaster. The people who were paid out early, paid taxes on their profits making the Government complicit.
Truly if any institution can make money disappear as if it was ejected into space it is our federal government. They cant even find where 700 billion dollars went.

Politicians in an effort to divert pressure from the loopholes they left and socialist leaning doo gooders see the solution as more regulation and education as if the new regulations will be any more effective than the last ones and the public through infomercials will forsake financial advantage that comes their way.

So far they have made wall street in general the target as if the source of all evil.

In a neat summary of the anger millions of people are channeling toward Wall Street, Janet Tavakoli wrote on her company website: "The largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the capital markets is the relationship between failed mortgage lenders and investment banks that securitized the risky overpriced loans and sold these packages to other investors—a Ponzi scheme by every definition applied to Madoff." By comparison, she wrote, the fallen fund manager is just "a piker."

The greed is good philosophy works when all its components are in place. The moniker for that philosophy is, dont risk more than you can lose. That philosophy depends on working without a net. The government in its social engineering busybodying has made being to big to fail the ruling business model. The net is firmly in place.

The protector and overseer of the common good is the very institution that is responsible for its demise. No amount of regulation can nail jello to a wall. It just creates an alternate pathway that is by definition legal, to acquire wealth. Any Christian knows that education of the public as an actually implementable solution is a farce and biblically documented given the fallen state of man.

For a humorous conclusion. If your looking for a solution to any problem consider Ecclesiastes 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ;)

Jody,

Thanks for the reference to the Pope's recent encylical. I was not aware of it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_...

It's a well-reasoned (but lengthy) article touching on some of the concerns raised here; the Pope's main concern seems to be the representation and rights of developing, and poor countries, on the global stage with the economic superpowers.

At the close of chapter 5, the Pope writes:

"In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."

"One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority...Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

This sounds right to me!

Zane and Jody

You are ahead of me in reading the Pope on "Charity in Truth" and I am envious!

(Doesn't Paul put it the other way around? Is there a substantial difference between speaking "truth in love" and "speaking love in truth?" Even if there is, both might be necessary!)

My question: What does the Pope say about freedom in general and economic freedom in particular? I think we need to nurture as much of both as we can without putting at risk justice and the common good. Effectively free markets strike me as necessary for both.

David

Thanks for the dialog.

You wrote that "... even though the people you mention are primarily responsible for what went wrong, the rest of "us" are accountable for putting and keeping them in office."

Unless you are "The House" it is difficult for the participants to get a favorable outcome in a rigged game. The game is rigged to favor limited input of the voters by favoring two parties and providing advantages to incumbents. I went so far as to vote for Perot in '92 just as a protest against the choices proffered by the two controlling parties. Sometimes, when voting, it seems like being offered a choice of cat food or dog food for dinner when you really wish good ol' haystacks were on the menu!

A couple of years ago I wrote to my Representative in Congress letting him know my opinion of the Israeli request for funds to remove & compensate the illegal jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. I received a two page response. Not once in his reply did he mention what his constituents wanted. It was as if, once the election was over, he could disregard the Will of the People and vote any way he felt like voting. We are voting for candidates who implement the Will of the Government, not the Will of the People.

I share your dismay at the Republican Party's direction for the last several decades. But I remind myself that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as were the parents of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Republicans are proud of Lincoln while not mentioning that the Republicans of Lincoln's era favored huge deficits, instituted the first income tax, promoted government aid to education, high tariffs, and many excise taxes. Just over the last few decades the party has changed so much that Senator Byrd, though continuing to be elected as a Democrat, seems to be a Republican.

I voted for Reagan and Bush. I went door-to-door campaigning for Obama. It was time to teach the extremists in the GOP a lesson in what a good 'whooping' at the polls means to your credibility. The Democrats are the Party of Loma Linda while the Republicans are the Party of Collegedale. I'll take the intellectualism of LLU any day over the fundamentalist, right wing oppression of Collegedale.

:-)

Pat

Thank you for the link to "God and Money." I read with great interest of the way it traces the notion of "the invisible hand" to Calvin and even further back to Augustine. Here is what Gavin Kennedy says about this in the paper I cited in the column. I think they might be saying something similar, that this expression was alive and well with a number of different meanings long before Smith used it.

"The invisible hand is called Smith’s metaphor, but he didn’t invent it. Scholars [11] (I have drawn on their work for what follows) report many early literary references to ‘invisible hands’, showing substantial prior use of it before Smith and with whose work he was familiar (he had many of their books in his library):

● Homer (Iliad, 720 BC); ‘And from behind Zeus thrust him [Hector] on with exceeding mighty hand’; [12]

● Horace, Fulminantis manus Jovis (‘The mighty hand of thundering Jove’); [13]

● Ovid of Caeneus at Troy: ‘twisted and plied his invisible hand, inflicting wound within wound’;[14]

● Lactantius (De divinio praemio, c.250-325): early use of ‘invisibilis’;

● Augustine, 354-430AD, “God’s ‘hand’ is his power, which moves visible things by invisible means’;[15]

● Shakespeare, (1605) ‘Thy Bloody and Invisible Hand’;[16]

● Glanvill, J. 1661. ‘nature work[ing] by an invisible hand in all things’; ‘invisible intellectual agents’;[17]

● Voltaire (1694-1778) in (1718): “Tremble, unfortunate King, an invisible hand suspends above your head’; and ‘an invisible hand pushed away my presents’;[18]

● Daniel Defoe, ‘A sudden Blow from an almost invisible Hand, blasted all my Happiness’, in Moll Flanders (1722); ‘it has all been brought to pass by an invisible hand’ (Colonel Jack, 1723); [19]

● Nicolas Lenglet Dufesnoy (1735) an “invisible hand” has sole power over “what happens under our eyes”;[20]

● Charles Rollin (1661-1741), whom Pierre Force describes as ‘very well known in English and Scottish Universities’, said of the military successes of Israeli Kings “the rapidity of their consequences ought to have enabled them to discern the invisible hand which conducted them”;[21]

● William Leechman (1755): ‘the silent and unseen hand of an all wise Providence which over-rules all the events all the events of human life, and all the resolutions of the human will’;[22]

● Charles Bonnet (whom Smith befriended in Geneva in 1765) wrote of the economy of the animal: “It is led towards its end by an invisible hand”;[23]

● Jean-Baptiste Robinet (1761) (a translator of Hume) refers to fresh water as “those basins of mineral water, prepared by an invisible hand”;[24]

● Walpole, H. 1764. ‘the door was clapped-to with violence by an invisible hand’[25]

● Reeve, C. (1778) ‘Presently after, he thought he was hurried away by an invisible hand, and led into a wild heath’.[26]

His use of the invisible hand metaphor was hardly remarked upon until assumptions about its role slipped into the mainstream almost unnoticed and unquestioned; it only became synonymous with his name from the mid-20th century onwards. Among the few exceptions were Karen Vaughan,[27] Emma Rothschild and Sam Fleischacker.[28]"

More later, after it gets too hot to work outside!

Dave

Dave,

To be honest, I have skimmed the letter, and not read it as carefully as I'd like. =)

Re: "truth in love" vs. "love in truth", El Papa (and this theologians) writes in his Introduction (2):

"I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence."

Re: Freedom and free markets - This topic seems to be dealt with mainly in Chapter 3 (35, 36, 40), where Benedict observes (again, rightly, IMO):

"In a climate of mutual trust, the market is the economic institution that permits encounter between persons, inasmuch as they are economic subjects who make use of contracts to regulate their relations as they exchange goods and services of equivalent value between them, in order to satisfy their needs and desires. The market is subject to the principles of so-called commutative justice, which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between parties to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function" (35).

"Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution" (36).

The Church has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society. In and of itself, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak. Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations. Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.

"Even if the ethical considerations that currently inform debate on the social responsibility of the corporate world are not all acceptable from the perspective of the Church's social doctrine, there is nevertheless a growing conviction that business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference" (40).

Keafan,

Thanks for the dose of realism about the financial policies of the first Republicans!

You write: "Sometimes, when voting, it seems like being offered a choice of cat food or dog food for dinner when you really wish good ol' haystacks were on the menu!"

How true!

Although this is slowly changing as the community grows, Loma Linda, California is a strongly Republican community. I used to be able to count the Democrats on one hand. Now it would probably take both my hands and both my feet.

Yet there are many Republicans, Democrats and Independents I don't know about.

I don't think it the proper role of the church to cozy up to any political party but to advocate in all of them principles that make sense in the light of faith, reason and public evidence.

I also think it proper for the church to provide settings in which these principles and their possible implementation can be openly and comfortably discussed.

I think we are coming up short on this. For example, I now wish we at Loma Linda had done something on religion, politics and the economy this year when Sabbath and July 4 fell on the same day.

But next year we could have such a discussion on the Sabbath closest to that American holiday and SDAs in at least some other countries could do the same on the days that are most important in their nations.

Many thanks!

Dave

Thank you, Zane! I've got some reading to do (as always!).
Dave

Here's a quick look at how the prosperity gospel is faring in the economic downturn. Pretty well it seems.

http://www.slate.com/id/2222495/pagenum/all/#p2

Pat

Your distinction between regulations that foster procedural fairness in business transactions and those that attempt to acheive some social goal strikes me as on target.

There is a difference and this difference is important.

Yet I'm not convinced that all regulations of the second kind are a mistake (something you did not say but I inferred).

Would it really be objectionable for a society to say that it prefers a large middle class and smaller rich and poor ones and to regulate things to some extent in the interest of that social goal?

An economic libertarian, as distinguished from a social one, might contend, perhaps successfully, that the best way to achieve this in some specific setting is to stick with regulations of the first sort. But is this true always and everywhere?

Although we should not try it today, and although there is very little evidence that it was actually practiced in Biblical times, the Old Testament idea of the "Year of Jubilee" suggests to me that every society eventually needs some pattern of re-distribution that corrects to some extent the longterm consequences of failures in the market, particularly on those who did not make these mistakes.

I think a case for this can be made in the names of liberty and efficiency; however, would it be a mistake to make them in the name of fairness as well?

If so, I'm not certain why.

Thank you! I hope you are well.

Dave

Dave,

At best we all are talking of "relative justice."

I think the OT system of the 7 and 50 yr. release sets the standard by "law" and we now but attempt "moral relativism."

Money and wealth were not redistributed but the land and ability to acquire "wealth" from it by one's own labor was offerred. Yes, debts were cancelled after 7 yrs. to the fellow Israelite but it was known in advance.

To socially engineer "a middle class" by making rules on business to me takes away from the efficiency of simply creating products.

If certain things are felt needed by all of society, or the less fortunate, simply have a flat tax without any deductions to raise revenue for the desired goals that are agreed upon by elected officials. There also remains the possibilituy of voluntary charity.

This seems as equitable to me as the tithe which was 10% for all and not "progressive." Shall we start having a "progressive tithe"...why not?

The flat tax means all contribute and have skin in the game. It also does not burden business with that which is best not born efficiently by them. They are there to make the best products possible at the best price possible...not be social planners/deliverers.

That's my take.

Regards,
pat

Consider a vastly oversimplified world in which

(1) There is two acres of land,

(2) Which can grow "food",

(3) and populated by exactly four couples who have complete control over their reproduction.

The land is split between them, two couples on each acre and living well.

--- Question One:
The couples on Acre One choose to produce one male and one female each. The resulting two couples take over their parent's acre when their parents die, and live just as well.

The couples on Acre Two choose to produce four males and four females each. The resulting eight couples take over their parent's acre, and are continuously malnourished and ill.

From a MORAL viewpoint, should the Acre One group give up some of their land and join in the Acre Two's suffering because of the Acre Two group's foolish overpopulation?

--- Question Two:
The couples on Acre One discover that they can live better if they poison their fields once a year. The poison runs into Acre Two but in such low quantities it doesn't matter. They are now living very pleasantly.

The couples on Acre Two struggle for a few generations, and then discover that they too can live better if they also poison their fields once a year. Unfortunately the combined doses of poison from both acres cause serious illnesses - although because of their previous problems, Acre Two is better off than they were.

From a MORAL viewpoint, should the Acre Two group not be allowed their use of poison because Acre One started using it first?

Hi Bevin,

Interesting questions.

I thought of Jesus saying, if they were hungry feed them, the least of these...

Poisons should not be used - our addictions to poisons will kill us.

People are the most precious resource on the planet. People can cultivate deserts and bring them back to life. People have the potential to turn this planet around. If it takes people hard work, well then employment crisis solved. If there are millions sitting around and doing nothing going hungry, then education is required.

My answers, feed them and educate them, teach them to work. Isn't this what Jesus told us to do?

Or, you could go with the Popes plan.
“To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Pope Benedict July 7 2009

Would one classify this as the start of a new world order?

Michael,

I have been asked before how I could love America and be a "patriot" when EGW implied that the US would be a "lamblike" beast that would oppress.

My response considering recent economic events is that today's America is not the Republic of the "founders" or the one I grew up with. It's original principles are "daily" being violated.

There has been a paradigm shift in which "necessity" superceeds the law. Anything has now become possible if it is felt to be a "necessity" for the public good. Justice for " both the ONE and many" is becoming outdated and this is dangerous.

I personally "believe" we are seeing an "application" of Rev.17:12-18 in the making.

regards,
pat

MIchael,

I wrote this article during the "cold war"(1975) when most SDA evangelist saw Armageddon as nation against nation and tanks fighting each other.

I consider the article to still be timely and relative...and I still live my life as if Christ won't come for 100 yrs.
I don't believe in fear evangelism. I do believe God knows and holds the future and will protect those who seek Him and trust in the merits of His son. He is a redemptive God of grace and He protects his own and will ultimately destroy the "prince of this earth" to free His beloved.

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1975/MIN1975-12.pdf

p.24,25.

regards,
pat

Thanks so much Pat for your timely thoughts and articles.

It's unusual for spectrum to not have a blog on the Papal encyclical last week. To me, the silence is deafening especially considering the scope and how it ties into current discussions on nearly every level..

Agreed...it was deafening silence. But then...what was there to disagree with? ;~)

pat

Maybe the Encyclical got all the attention it deserved.

I mean,

(a) a man who is the head of a wealthy denomination, whose assets were obtained by persuading the poor to give to the wealthy, is protesting unequal distribution of wealth...

(b) a denomination whose basic message is "out-breed the other guy" is trying to persuade those who were smart enough to cut back on their birthrate to give money to those who were duped by the denomination into breeding too many people...

(c) a denomination with no political power amongst the wealthy is begging for a hand-out for its constituents

(d) a man who was stupid enough to condemn condoms is asking for a handout for the resulting poverty-striken masses

Yeah, it is worth a lot of attention

/Bevin

Hi David

Thank you for referencing my paper, 'Adam Smith and the invisible hand: from metaphor to myth'.

Since it appeared in May 2009, I have seen a list of 41 other references to the invisible hand from the 17th-18th centuries, mainly in a theological context (sermons, texts and summaries). In both theology and literary texts, the metaphor was ubiquitous, though it tended to drop from view, so to speak(!) throughtout the 19th century until it was 'revived' slightly in the late 19th century and then in abundance in mid-20th century, in reference to Adam Smith.

Readers interested in its modern misusage in respect of Adam Smith may consult: www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com

Gavin