Modern Economics

[there buster]

Quote:

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,

Oh, yes, and since all of these things are the result of Christianity and American imperialism, American Christians should be assessed not only unlimited blame, but they should personally have their assets siezed and sent to needy third world people everywhere, especially the unearned inheritances of land which we stole from the Indians anyway. But wait, being here first didn't give the Indians any rights to the lands either. This placing guilt thing for past wrongs gets so complicated--I'm gonna have to ask for more guidance.

[Bravus]

Um, no... war and racism, poverty and drought were endemic in Africa long before European influence. You're projecting again.

[David Koot]

Um, no... war and racism, poverty and drought were endemic in Africa long before European influence.

As was slavery. But as for intertribal wars, the information we do have presents an appalling spectacle of rampant cannibalism. An intriguing aspect of that is the extent of the practice. Margaret Mead proposed a tribal justification for cannibalism OUTSIDE of the tribe. However, there are eyewitness accounts of it being practiced WITHIN the tribe, for example upon wounded fellow warriors who were killed and eaten by their comrades.

Undoubtedly, there were abuses perpetrated by some Europeans. However, I believe that, on the whole, the situation was far better in comparison with the past.

Dave

[Bravus]

Probably correct. I'm not sure the comparison is useful, though, since (pace Ed) it's not about 'whose fault' (and I certainly did not say, or mean, that poverty in Africa was Europeans' fault in those senses) but about 'where to from here?' The aim of this thread, as I understand it, is to talk about economics, including the effect of economics on human lives. We have included discussion of the economic arrangements God set up in Israel, including tithes, and the discussion of interest and usury is in relation to that point.

[Bravus]

The Cato Institute, by the way, is a right-wing 'think tank', so its reports on the relationship between welfare and poverty should be read in light of that fact.

[there buster]

Quote:

Um, no... war and racism, poverty and drought were endemic in Africa long before European influence. You're projecting again.

Why thank you. I'm just not good at knowing when to pay attention to history and when to ignore it in order to see the greater truth. Thanks for the guidance. It's always helpful when you tell me what I'm doing as well as responding to the ideas in the posts.

So, if war and racism, poverty and drought were endemic--I think that means commonplace(?)--in Africa long before European influence, then it looks like to me that Europeans may not have caused all those things in Africa. Can this be?

[Bravus]

That is indeed true. Just to clarify further. I thought (mistakenly as it turns out) that Shane was saying 'welfare causes poverty in Africa'. (What he was actually saying is 'welfare causes poverty in America'.) I was pointing out that many things cause poverty in Africa. I didn't say, think or mean to say 'white people cause these things'. By 'you're projecting', I meant that you had assumed I had said something I had not said. Perhaps I should not have told you what you were doing, but simply said 'If you think I said that, you are mistaken'.

So, bottom line: there exists poverty in Africa (as in America, though different in kind and scope) and there are a wide range of ways of dealing with that poverty. Astonishingly, punitive taxes on Americans for foreign aid is not the first solution that springs to my mind. Some form of debt relief is... and that turns out to be something that fits with the economic arrangements God instituted in the Bible.

You are excellent at keeping us honest in terms of actually *reading* what people post and responding to that, and I hope you'll try to do the same, rather than assume certain positions on our part.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

.... endemic--I think that means commonplace?

from the greek 'endemos' meaning 'native'. from 'en' -in + 'demos' -people or district.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Cato Institute, by the way, is a right-wing 'think tank'

Yes it is. However it is selective reporting that we should look out for. Normally ideological reporters have their facts right, they just don't include other facts that may bring into question the political viewpoint they are trying to sell. This is just as common among left-wing reporters as it is among the right which is why we need to get our news from various sources.

The point I was making is that their is another viewpoint. Republicans were being characterized as not caring about the poor because they favor welfare reform. The Cato Institute shows that it isn't just that simple. Both sides care about the poor. They disagree on what the solution is.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

(What he was actually saying is 'welfare causes poverty in America'.)

I am not aware of any studies that show welfare causes poverty but I know of studies that show it doesn't help out.

I have not been on welfare since I was a kid. However at that time, welfare discouraged marriage, encouraged divorce and forbid owning property. Now if that isn't the recipe for poverty I don't know what is.

[there buster]

Quote:

So, bottom line: there exists poverty in Africa (as in America, though different in kind and scope) and there are a wide range of ways of dealing with that poverty.

OK

Quote:

Astonishingly, punitive taxes on Americans for foreign aid is not the first solution that springs to my mind.

If you're surprised, I'm surprised.

Quote:

Some form of debt relief is... and that turns out to be something that fits with the economic arrangements God instituted in the Bible.

What an opportunity! I'll see if I can convince my neighbors (they're all farmers) not to harvest in the corners. Then poor Africans can come and glean there. Transportation may be a problem. . . . I don't know if it's really feasible.

Quote:

You are excellent at keeping us honest in terms of actually *reading* what people post and responding to that, and I hope you'll try to do the same, rather than assume certain positions on our part.

Oh, I've given that up. Too harsh a tone. It's just that I've learned from you and others that Americans cause so much of the misery in the world, I'm never certain which ones are not our fault. It's all very confusing.

For example, I always understood that Israelites were not to charge interest to fellow Israelites, especially the poor among them. So now that means the America should not charge interest to other nations? So does that make America the equivalent of ancient Israel?

Or does it mean, since Christians ought to follow Biblical principles, and now you're recommending America should, does that mean America is considered a Christian nation?

But I thought that was not true. I thought we favored the separation of church and state. But now we're to act as if the nation was Christian? It's all so confusing.

[Bravus]

...and yet, your come-back in response to the idea of a 10% flat tax was 'So God got it wrong?'

[Bravus]

Two points in clarification of things I've said in the thread:

1. Two people arguing on the same 'side' are not necessarily making the same arguments. bevin has talked about doing what is 'more Christian'. I don't think I have. I'm focusing on (a) what is pragmatically doable and workable with the goal of creating an economic system that includes the possibility of helping those less fortunate and ( as part of that on some precedents of the economic system God set up in ancient Israel. I'm not making moral claims that 'more socialist = more Christian' (nor accepting moral claims that 'more capitalist = more Christian'.

2. The argument for debt relief is a pragmatic one, based on what will help particular poor people more. While the example that God instituted of not charging poor Jews interest is an interesting precedent, I'm not arguing that it is therefore something incumbent on Christians or nations or Christian nations. I'm saying it's on interesting, non-redistributive (in many though not all senses) way of lifting the burdens of the poor.

[there buster]

Quote:

...and yet, your come-back in response to the idea of a 10% flat tax was 'So God got it wrong?'

I'm trying to understand what connection you're making.

[Bravus]

I guess I saw a disconnect between this:

Quote:

For example, I always understood that Israelites were not to charge interest to fellow Israelites, especially the poor among them. So now that means the America should not charge interest to other nations? So does that make America the equivalent of ancient Israel?

Or does it mean, since Christians ought to follow Biblical principles, and now you're recommending America should, does that mean America is considered a Christian nation?

But I thought that was not true. I thought we favored the separation of church and state. But now we're to act as if the nation was Christian? It's all so confusing.

and the statement about God getting it wrong. When you're rebutting someone's comment about a taxation system, God's wishes are a relevant and sufficient argument, even though the tithing system was ecclesiastical rather than governmental. But then you want to move away from the notion of what God instituted in relation to interest. The cases aren't directly parallel, but the whole picture didn't seem consistent to me.

[there buster]

Quote:

with the goal of creating an economic system that includes the possibility of helping those less fortunate

It's the 'possibility of helping those less fortunate' that you're seeking?

By 'less fortunate' do you mean things like giving money to relieve the debts of compulsive gamblers? I mean, their 'luck' or 'fortune' would seem to be less than others.

Quote:

The argument for debt relief is a pragmatic one, based on what will help particular poor people more.

So you think forgiving the interest paid by dictators, for example will bring relief to the poor in their countries?

I like your idea of using someone else's money to make poor people far away richer, or at least less poor. I didn't know dictators would do that.

Quote:

I'm not making moral claims that 'more socialist = more Christian' (nor accepting moral claims that 'more capitalist = more Christian'.

Yes, I can see that. It's so hard to decide whether God favors freedom or compulsion.

[bevin]

I think there are at least three different issues here

(a) Whether the Federal Govt should pay any welfare to anyone from taxes

( Whether the State Govt should

© How those taxes should be spent

I live in NH. I ride ambulances. I do NOT see a vast waste of welfare dollars, with people using welfare checks for compulsive gambling etc.

I don't know where EDD lives or how much actual first-hand knowledge he has of the welfare spending in his state.

I do know that, in New Zealand, there is concern that it is too easy for a family to live on welfare.

It is not easy nor pleasant to live on welfare in NH.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

It would save a considerable amount of money to do away with the food stamp program and give welfare recepiants the same amount of money in cash. Cash that they could use for food, liquor, tobacco, drugs, gambling or anything.

Why don't we do that? The obvious answer is that welfare abuse is real and that would only encourage more abuse.

[bevin]

I was reading in an autobiography of a woman who had moved from out west to Massachusetts to go to an expensive university, and had got herself/kids on the Mass. welfare system including food stamps because she could, rather than just go to a cheaper school or get a student loan. That, I agree, is welfare abuse.

However the kind of people food-stamps are really aimed at helping are often incapable of the level of self-control needed to spend cash on food rather than on cigarettes/alcohol/...

For an eye-opening time, volunteer once a month at a place that feeds the destitute, or a homeless shelter... and then ask yourself whether you really want to give them cash

Unfortunately ambulance ride-alongs are not usually possible (%^&*^ lawyers) or I would recommend those for a real education.

[Bravus]

Interesting that the discussion *instantly* moves to abuse of welfare, without ever stopping at use of welfare. Seen some abuses by members of Congress lately, but no-one is proposing disbanding Congress.

Any human system is subject to abuse. We design the system as well as we can to limit that, but realistically have to realise it's impossible to stop it all. If doing the thing is worthwhile in itself, the fact that there will be some abuse should not stop us from doing it.

And remember that welfare serves the most damaged people in any society, who are living with histories of abuse and neglect and few positive role models and little parenting and... it's unsurprising that some people in that situation will make wrong decisions, but there are ways to deal with that that don't penalise the many who make good decisions and are struggling to just get by and make a life for their families.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

no-one is proposing disbanding Congress.

You might be on to something there. LOL but really, on a serious note, campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbying are talked about all the time and legislation has been passed in recent years. So abuse is something that gets addressed in America on all levels.

The issue isn't whether or not the poor and uneducated need a helping hand. Few are like Ebenezer Scrooge, content with prisons and orphanages to take care of the problem. The debate revolves around how to help them. Do we have government provide for all their needs, or do we support faith-based charities to help these people? Those that are anti-religion oppose supporting faith-based charities because they hate God and all that religion stands for. There are also a class of Adventists that are paranoid that if faith-base religions receive public support it means they will pass the Sunday law and kill all the Sabbath keepers.

I look at organizations like the Salvation Army and see that they do a much better job that any government program does. They address not only the financial needs but help out the downtrodden with spiritual issues like self-esteem and chemical dependencies. I don't a secular government can solve all of societies social problems. Religion has to play a role and government needn't be anti-religion in order to maintain religious liberty.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

And remember that welfare serves the most damaged people in any society, who are living with histories of abuse and neglect and few positive role models

And that includes societal abuse and neglect, IMO. In this 'land of opportunity,' (and i'm glad to be a part of it) 'opportunity' is not equal-opportunity. Consider the public schools funded by local property taxes. In wealty communitys the school are well equipped, in poorer communitys - less well equipped and staffed.

[bevin]

Quote:

The debate revolves around how to help them. Do we have government provide for all their needs, or do we support faith-based charities to help these people?

Any faith-based group is welcome today to do it - and there are some that do. For instance in Nashua the Roman Catholics run an excellent home for unmarried mothers. When the faith-based group raises the money they are welcome to spend it how they like.

However the faith-based groups are simply failing to meet the needs of the community. A variety of groups provide help to the Nashua community where I ride an ambulance - some, but not all, faith-based - but the combined total is not meeting anywhere near all the needs.

In short, the faith-based charities have proven that they are incapable or unwilling to fund the work or do the work.

Very few people object to groups of people-of-faith forming an charity, applying for federal or state money, and spending it on religion-free welfare work. But they using don't do that either - they insist on bringing overt religion into it.

So, we end up in a situation where

(a) there is no doubt a need

( the need is not being filled by private groups

and hence

© it is in the interest of society for tax-payers to foot the bill

resulting in

(d) the usual mixture of success and failure.

However the failure of some of the faith-based groups does not condemn that strategy, and the failure some of the tax-based programs does not condemn that strategy either.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

...and Ed D would still consider it wrong to deliver those services from a faith-based group if it's tax funded, I assume.

[Woody]

Quote:

but no-one is proposing disbanding Congress

WOW ... HOLD ON. I am not so sure about this. I for one have come near to this belief. I think we are much better off when we don't have big brother telling us what to do.

I approved when under Gingrich we had the government closed and in gridlock. I have always been in favor of "gridlock". The less laws the better as far as I am concerned.

I am not promoting disbanding of Congress ... but close. I prefer to continue to pay their salary but just have gridlock