Modern Economics

[bevin]

Yes, the introduction of modern production methods into a society which is smart but poor will raise the living standards of many.

However there are those corners of the USA and India where this effect has not reached - and in those corners children are being born severely disadvantaged.

Clearly the mechanisms that you describe are erratic.

Quote:

Beyond that, even elaborate welfare systems do not eliminate or even ameliorate real poverty, because poverty is not a matter of material possessions.

Since real poverty is not material possessions, then real wealth isn't either - and you won't mind having some of of these irrelevant material possessions forcably redistributed :-)

But the bottom line is, the government are enforcing a concept of raw material ownership - land, coal, oil, water, ... This concept is purely artificial - and it is denying the new born their chance to simply take some for themselves. We compensate them for taking away this opportunity with a welfare system.

In Israel, it was the clan and the Jubilee that made sure everyone had land -and that was not voluntary. In our society, it is welfare.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Just some comments on charging interest.

The Bible prohibitions seem to be directed against charging the poor interest and applied to food as well as money. (Ex 22:25, Lev 25:35-37, Deu. 23:19-20, Prov 28.8)

In the parable of Mt 25:14-30 Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with accepting interest from a commercial-type loan.

Adventist conferences charge interest to Adventist church when they loan them money.

[Bravus]

I suspect the parable was about investment returns rather than interest, which is a different issue. And yeah, I know modern Adventists charge interest, but that doesn't address the biblical model and why it is or is not applicable in the modern world.

[Bravus]

I suspect the parable was about investment returns rather than interest, which is a different issue. (Or rather, the parable was about how we spend our time until he returns, but the example used involved returns on investments (i.e. trade) rather than just interest.)

And yeah, I know modern Adventists charge interest, but that doesn't address the biblical model and why it is or is not applicable in the modern world.

[Dr. Shane]

When the church goes into disaster areas and provides relief items such as food and clothing, it doesn't charge interest or even make the people pay anything back. To do so would seem to be what is being forbidden in the Old Testament.

Historically many have translated the verses to be a complete prohibition on charging interest and there have been uprisings where all the money lenders and changers were killed or expelled from their country.

[there buster]

Quote:

Since real poverty is not material possessions, then real wealth isn't either - and you won't mind having some of of these irrelevant material possessions forcably redistributed :-)

It's done all the time and it doesn't work. That's exactly the point.

Quote:

Clearly the mechanisms that you describe are erratic.

Erratic, yes, it's only successful sometimes. Unlike government redistribution, which consistently fails.

Quote:

raw material ownership - land, coal, oil, water,

Yes, that's why Singapore and Hong Kong are so poor--they possess no raw materials at all.

Quote:

the clan and the Jubilee that made sure everyone had land -and that was not voluntary.

Well, we know it was not enforced. It was exhorted not coerced. God specifically said the Sabbaths of the land-- and hence, the Jubilee system-- had not been observed.

By contrast, the welfare system is coerced, through taxation and the threat of fines and imprisonment.

Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I know modern Adventists charge interest, but that doesn't address the biblical model and why it is or is not applicable in the modern world.

That radical, Jesus of Nazareth, was such a nonconformist that he said if you make a loan to someone don't ask for it back, not even the principal let alone any interest!

[bevin]

Quote:

Unlike government redistribution, which consistently fails.

Not true.

China, for instance, redistributed the wealth from the Aristocracy to the middle/peasant classes, and this has definitely improved the lives of the peasants - through enabling the capitalism we see there now. Yes, it took 50 years.

New Zealand, for instance, has a state-run health and education system and is far better off now than when I was there as a child - again, through enabling an enterpreneurial economy.

I could also point to many other instances of the rise of the peasants coming from involuntary redistribution of the estates of the aristocracy to the peasantry.

However, as I am sure you agree, this does not always work. People with no education, poor health, and IQ's in the 80's make poor choices with or without a welfare check. Welfare checks don't make them productive members of society - nor are they intended to.

Quote:

that's why Singapore and Hong Kong are so poor--they possess no raw materials at all

They have one absolutely critical raw material - land in extremely valuable locations. Have you looked at the price of a square foot of HongKong land lately?

Quote:

The Jubilee was not enforced

Correct. There are no known records of it being enforced - but it is the same code of conduct as the rules on tithe and beastiality.

Quote:

Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

along with enforcing the speed limit, the pollution regulations, and restrictions against murder.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

China, for instance, redistributed the wealth from the Aristocracy to the middle/peasant classes, and this has definitely improved the lives of the peasants - through enabling the capitalism we see there now. Yes, it took 50 years.

Wrong. The Communist masters redistributed the wealth of a privileged class to themselves, while most of China remained in poverty. China in the early 1970's was in some ways worse off than Chinaa in the 1930's.

But when Deng Xiao Ping introduced market-style reforms, the economy took off. It wasn't redistribution but market economics.

Quote:

They have one absolutely critical raw material - land in extremely valuable locations. Have you looked at the price of a square foot of HongKong land lately?

ROFLOL!

When you mentioned location, I thought maybe you had something serious in mind, like both of them being entrepots, but value per square foot! Hilarious.The land--what very little there is-- is valuable because of the wealth-creating activity of the people there, not merely because of it's location.

Quote:

Correct. There are no known records of it being enforced - but it is the same code of conduct as the rules on tithe and beastiality.

Wrong again. There are no civil PENALTIES listed for not enacting the jubilee. There is a penalty listed for bestiality, for adultery, Sabbath-breaking.

Quote:

Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

Quote:

along with enforcing the speed limit, the pollution regulations, and restrictions against murder.

Jackpot! Wrong on everything. Speed limits have no reference to "right and wrong" only "permitted and not permitted." Until now, I've never heard anyone foolish enough to try to attach moral significance to a speed limit. Neither does the state attach any moral significance to prohibiting pollution or murder. Pollution can be outlawed on a number of utilitarian grounds as can murder.

And there is yet another fundamental difference between the prohibitions agains speeding, etc., versus forced redistribution.

In all the other cases, the limits on behavior are described, and those who violate them are penalized.

Whether the speeder slows down for moral reasons, or just because he doesn't want another ticket, no one cares.

But income redistribution the money is taken through confiscation, and the taxpayer is forced to do what someone else has deemed is 'good.'

[Bravus]

Not necessarily. It might be simply doing what is considered expedient or effective. The creation of a permanent underclass who are in a vicious cycle of lack of education and motivation that limits their choices to get education and stifles their motivation is not healthy for society, and locking them all up costs even more. Some measures to at least offer a hand to those who wish to lift themselves out of poverty are just good sense.

[bevin]

Just a reminder from the top of the thread -

"Let's see if we can play a little nicer in this thread"

China:

Quote:

It wasn't redistribution but market economics.

The improvements there are the combined impact of at least three independent things (a) the demolition of the aristocracy, ( the introduction of a minimum standard of living by compulsory redistribution of some of the wealth, and © modern technology.

It is over-simplistic to credit it all to pure market economics - and, since China has never had pure market economics, you have no evidence that this is the case.

Quote:

ROFLOL!

When you mentioned location, I thought maybe you had something serious in mind, like both of them being entrepots, but value per square foot! Hilarious. The land--what very little there is-- is valuable because of the wealth-creating activity of the people there, not merely because of it's location.

That is exactly what I had in mind.

I didn't think I needed to spell it out to you.

Quote:

There are no civil PENALTIES listed for not enacting the jubilee

I never said there was. All I said was it was in the same code of conduct. You keep reading more into my words than I put there, and then criticizing your own extension.

Quote:

Whether the speeder slows down for moral reasons, or just because he doesn't want another ticket, no one cares.

But income redistribution the money is taken through confiscation, and the taxpayer is forced to do what someone else has deemed is 'good.'

Society, as a whole, has decided to create some rules. I have not claimed these rules are based on morality. I do not claim the welfare rules are any more based on morality than the speed-limit rules.

Again, you are reading more into my words than I put in them, and then criticizing your own extension.

Actually I am a pragmatist in this area. The pragmatic fact is that my standard of living is degraded by having people try to steal from me, and that I have a choice as to how to deal with it.

Either

(a) I can pay to use force to limit their activities, or

( I can pay to increase their standard of living

Economically, ( is cheaper.

Curiously, ( is also more Christian.

Society, Caesar, has set some rules based on this same analysis.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - but you don't have to like it :-)

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

There are no civil PENALTIES listed for not enacting the jubilee

I never said there was. All I said was it was in the same code of conduct. You keep reading more into my words than I put there, and then criticizing your own extension.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that without penalties, there is no enforcement mechanism. That's the point you keep ducking. Two laws in the same code, one has enforcement mechanism, the other does not. Obviously, they do not have the same status. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out to you.

Quote:

That is exactly what I had in mind.

No, it's not. Location is not a raw material.

Quote:

I have not claimed these rules are based on morality. I do not claim the welfare rules are any more based on morality than the speed-limit rules.

Again, you are reading more into my words than I put in them, and then criticizing your own extension.

Actually, you are the one who equated all of them:

Quote:

Ed said: Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

Quote:

Bevin said:

along with enforcing the speed limit, the pollution regulations, and restrictions against murder.

Quote:

The pragmatic fact is that my standard of living is degraded by having people try to steal from me, and that I have a choice as to how to deal with it.

Either

(a) I can pay to use force to limit their activities, or

( I can pay to increase their standard of living

I disagree on several grounds. But I would have no problem if you actually chose (. It is not automatically more Christian, despite your claim to that effect.

The problem is that you do not choose either (a) or (.

You choose to have the government confiscate money from me and others to carry out your choice. That's the whole point. Choose ( call it 'charity' or 'bribery' or whatever, I don't care what you call it. If it springs from the proper motives, God will bless you for it. But to choose to have government coerce me to accept your choice, and I object strenuously.

And whatever else it is, it is not 'more Christian' to force your choice onto others.

[Bravus]

But who pays the police? Taxes: so (a) requires confiscation in order to enforce an idea of what is good too.

[bevin]

Quote:

Two laws in the same code, one has enforcement mechanism, the other does not. Obviously, they do not have the same status.

Agreed. I never said they did.

Quote:

Location is not a raw material.

Quibble.

Quote:

Actually, you are the one who equated all of them

Nope - you did when you wrote...

Quote:

Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

All I did was point out that there are lots of instances in our society of the whole group using a process to enforce a rule.

Quote:

it is not 'more Christian' to force your choice onto others.

I never said it was. I said the choice itself was more Christian, not the act of forcing it on others.

Would you like me to quote some bible texts to the effect that we are supposed to help others when they need help - or do you agree that is a fundamental Christian principle?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I've never heard anyone foolish enough to try to attach moral significance to a speed limit.

I was taught that the speed limit was based on two issues of morality. The first being the value of human life. That is, accidents that happen at lower speeds are less likely to be fatal. The second being to conserve energy and pollute less.

[bevin]

I agree Shane.

Furthermore it is based on another additional Christian principle - one of keeping contracts that you have agreed to.

When you sign for a driver's license, you agree to abide by the rules of the road. Those rules include speeding fines. You don't agree not to speed - but you do agree to pay the fine when you are caught.

[there buster]

Quote:

But who pays the police? Taxes: so (a) requires confiscation in order to enforce an idea of what is good too.

I really had higher hopes for you.

A state can justify taxation for police service on the basis of necessity--a utilitarian ground.

I have never said taxes should be abolished. ONly that they should not be levied in order to force someone else to do the "right thing."

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Just another example of one group forcing others to do the "right thing."

All I did was point out that there are lots of instances in our society of the whole group using a process to enforce a rule.

I see. Your defense is that your original response was irrelevant. Glad you finally see that.

Quote:

Would you like me to quote some bible texts to the effect that we are supposed to help others when they need help - or do you agree that is a fundamental Christian principle?

Since you cannot distinguish between the voluntary and the coerced, there is no point.

[bevin]

Quote:

Since you cannot distinguish between the voluntary and the coerced, there is no point.

There are three completely different reasons for the same action.

(a) As a Christian, I have no objection to part of my wealth going to help those more unfortunate than me.

( As a pragmatist, I accept that there are going to be people more unfortunate than I, and the cheapest way to deal with that problem is to collaborate with others in a similar situation and pool our resources to deal with it.

I also accept that, like many other aspects of things for the common good, we are not going to get 100% consensus on the action and will need to use laws to make everyone pull their weight - just as with roads, pollution, regulations on use of the radio spectrum, the military, health regulations, ...

© From a viewpoint of morals and ethics, I find no inherent basis for the current resource allocation - the current allocation is based on military strength and politics and a mutual agreement that I will help you defend what we agree is yours if you will help me defend what we agree is mine.

Later arrivals - new borns, etc - find all the resources claimed. For some weird reason they don't seem to think this is to their benefit - and so they have no interest in maintaining this little charade - so they take something which one of us has claimed.

We need to make our charade affordable.

Welfare is cheaper than warfare or jails.

So a significant group of us decide to go the welfare rather than the warfare route. But others prefer to pretend that they have some inherent right to their land, to their air, to their water - and want to engage in warfare to protect it. So we use exactly the same warfare to take some of the stuff they are claiming as theirs, and give it to the others who we think it actually belongs to.

Tough - those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The stuff isn't actually yours to start with. Ownership of something is not some physical property of the universe, it is a privilege conferred on you by force, and taken away the same way.

Of course, since you can not distinquish between such voluntary agreements such as ownership, and physical properties such as gravity, I don't expect you to be able to understand this - and certainly don't expect you to agree with it.

Doesn't matter. My government is bigger than your private enterprise.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

My government is bigger than your private enterprise.

That's the spirit!

[Dr. Shane]

Christians do not disagree about the need to help the poor. They disagree about the best way to do that.

Welfare has not decreased poverty in America. The Cato Institutte has documented this well.

Quote:

Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Increasing out-of-wedlock births, weakening the work ethic and increasing crime hardly sound like Christian values. So it is completely understandable why many Christians are concerned about the welfare system - and it isn't because they don't want to help the poor.

In a capitalistic society, the key to success is making one's goods or services affordable to the masses. The problem is when politicians pass protectionist laws in order to protect their cronies or they fail to properly regulate monopolies. We see some of this in America today and much more throughout her history. However it is quite common place in developing countries where corruption runs thick. Corporations pay off government officials to either protect them from competition or allow their monopoly without regulation. These are the countries most likely to overthrow their "capitalistic" government in favor of a socialist government.

[there buster]

My point about speed limits is that they are arbitrary. Their relationship to safety is only notional.

For example American Interstate highways have a speed limit of 65-75 mph.

The German Autobahn has no upper speed limit in many places.

Can we say one is more moral than the other based solely on the speed limit? Especially when the Autobahn has fewer accidents?

As far as "the agreement" that Bevin raised, it's just another straw man.

Of course, if we agree to something, we should keep our word.

But if one community has a speed limit of 25 on its residential streets, and another has a speed limit of 20, or even 15, that doesn't make the limits themselves morally based.

I know talking about keeping our agreements sounds sweet and moral, but that doesn't change the obstructionist nature of the tactic. Still, I admire its sweetness.

[there buster]

Quote:

Christians do not disagree about the need to help the poor.

I agree with you Shane. But surely no one would imply otherwise.

[Bravus]

This is one reason I brought up the issue of charging interest. The point about the social effects of welfare in Africa can be debated, in that it's based on corellation and doesn't establish causality. That is 'first welfare, then social problems' does not mean welfare caused the social problems. AIDS, violence, racism, war, poverty, drought and a wide variety of other conditions, as well as the conflict between Western education and culture and traditional cultures, likely also contribute to the social problems identified.

But the charging of interest on international loans, often incurred by unrepresentative despotic governments, where the interest payments soak up all of the wealth of the country, and often end in a spiral where countries are borrowing in order to fund just the interest on their debts, is certainly a huge contributor to suffering in Africa. Shane made the point about specific Biblical instructions about not charging interest to the poor. Something like a debt amnesty is not charity, it's a very practical way of breaking the vicious cycles that make the operation of capitalism to improve people's lives ineffective.

[Dr. Shane]

My references were to welfare in America not Africa. I agree that loans to poverty stricken nations should be low interest (matching the rate of inflation) or no interest. However the problem is that much of this money doesn't go to the areas where it is suppose to because of corruption which is a leading contributor to the nation's poverty in the first place.