And by “stupid”, I don’t mean YOU are stupid if you don’t see the whole nationalizing thing, I’m merely riffing off Clinton’s 90s slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid”, hmm, maybe I should edit title, nah, blogs have to be linear the train has left the station, I’m already thinking about the second paragraph!
Panic on wall st about banks nationalizing of late is somewhat of a farce historically, don’t we think? If I could quote from TIME magazine’s Justin Fox:
“You could also say bank nationalization began in 1984 when regulators decided that Continental Illinois, then the nation's seventh largest bank, was too big to fail and put the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in charge of it. Or maybe the crucial moment came in 1933 when Congress decreed that small depositors should be protected from bank failures by the FDIC. Or in 1913 when Congress created the Federal Reserve System to halt banking panics and regulate the money supply…”
Fox goes on to trace the process of nationalizing banks all the way to 1791.
Still, economists and talking heads (on Fox news) are screaming socialism and using the other “S” word (ends with a “weden”) all over the media (Fox news). Wait, don’t capitalists claim that a pure free market will correct itself? Well, then, it IS correcting itself, by turning to a regulated hybrid-socialist model, silly (does “silly” sound nicer?). I don’t understand how one could make the argument that “let markets go, they will correct themselves” and then after this model fails to argue “allow it to correct itself by turning back to the same models that got us here”… that’s absurd! Talking heads across the world (Fox news), let the market correct itself, don’t bash Obama and Geithner for doing what your own model said it would do!
I have to suspect that the fear of allowing banks to nationalize must arise from some antiquated cold-war sentiment that once we socialize we can’t go back; as if once the government becomes 51% shareholder of Citibank the immortalized Lenin will come out of exile and begin his dictatorship over the United Soviet States of America with an iron fist… either that or conservative economists really, REALLY, revile the rancid aroma of Swedish meatballs. You know, there is such a thing as democratic-socialism, silly. Ooh, did anyone see the new “Blorg” coffee table at Ikea, oops, digressing!
To speak in real terms, the answer is greed. I don’t really believe that free market capitalists and republicans truly have (more than an sub-conscious) fear of either of the suspicions stated above; the true answer is that the consuming love of money guides our legislation; Christianity a bystander to the political process was pulled in to get votes.
Search your hearts, Faithful, find me a compelling scriptural argument for the following model: “Make as much money as you want, hurting as many people as necessary in the process, and keep it all for yourself.” Of course, one could argue: “well, I don’t hurt people, and I will give on my own volition,” but I’m speaking of a model for a secular government. Capitalism is run by the masses, not by the church, therefore people will be hurt (and are hurting) and people do keep $$ for themselves (look at our bank’s current lending practice). After searching my heart and searching scripture, I’m ready to make this statement:
Capitalism is counter-biblical.
I won’t nearly go so far as to propose a preposterous statement such as “Socialism is biblical” because that’s a farce. The word of God is not a political document. However, and it’s my desire to argue here, that Socialism promotes the fruits that scripture has called us to: Love for the needy, Generosity, Graciousness, trying to do Good even when it fails, trying to Give even when you are taken advantage of… to name a few. Capitalism promotes the self, and that is counter-biblical.
Despite the fact that the new testament clearly points to a more socialist type of rule, the paradoxical reason that Capitalism prevails under the democratic rule of a mainly Christian population is simple: The richest 2% of the population wants to get richer, they want to control legislation and lobby government to enable them to do so. But how can they do such a thing as only 2% of the population? They have created an infuriating and insidious lie that they are partnered with the church, and have used hot-buttoned non-political issues like abortion and gay-marriage to perpetuate their wealth. (Obama, please tax away).
I believe, although it grieves me, with my eyes wide open, that 99 out of 100 of the richest Americans will be in Hell by the time I’m sipping rootbear floats with Peter chatting about why we hiccup. The Godless wealthy have manipulated politics to their own means and have put their fingers into all constituencies to further their greed. Christians around America, be bold, stop this madness.
If you are still skeptical ask yourself this one question, I will paraphrase from Rick Warren’s sentiment: Is it true that the public sector, the private sector AND the church (all three) are needed to serve justice to the “widows and orphans”? That is, can’t government do what business and the church cannot do, can’t the church do what the other two can’t and so on? If we are truly called to look after the widows and orphans in their distress, as James describes as “PURE RELIGION”, shouldn’t we call on any and all means necessary? Shouldn’t we call on the government to reach the masses in the way that no one else can? Shouldn’t we call on the private sector for its creativity and immense resources? And shouldn’t we call our own lazy, fat, and decaying churches to be the grass-roots human contact that Jesus Christ was to the people?!?!?
Whew, my heart rate is up and my blood pressure is currently at double-quarter-pounder-with-cheese-supersized rates, which means I wrote a good blog☺ Ok, you know it, I know it, I probably said some pretty heretical impassioned stuff on this one. Please, please share your own thoughts. Oh, and btw, I’ve been off for a long time (I know) due to touring and wifing etc. sorry about that and thanks so much for reading.
Oh, here are all the sites from my blog:
Justin Fox on “Nationalizing Banks: What's All the Fuss?”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1881992,00.html
Ikea.com (“Blorg” is not an actual piece of furniture, it just sounds funny… and swedish)
Tax cuts to the wealthy under the bush administration
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/
Some fruits of the spirit
Galatians 5:19-26
The difficulty the wealthy have of entering heaven
Matthew 19:24
Rickwarren.com, his work with the peace plan project is inspiring:
http://www.thepeaceplan.com/
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after widows and orphans in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
-James 1:27
The number of calories in a double quarter pounder with cheese: 740
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_facts.html
7 comments:
so are you going back on your previous rationalization that the Democratic Party is more "Christian" than being Republican and simply making the issue about giving to the poor and needy, and dropping the liberal views of the Democratic party that you previously ignored? or chose to trivialize over the importance of charity.
in other words, i still think its lame of you to politicize religion. give to ceasar whats due, give to god whats due. separate church and state and simply do whats right in the eyes of god. jesus didnt speak out against the roman government, but petitioned our hearts, causing us to look inward to affect the outward.
youre absolutely wrong in the justification "The Godless wealthy have manipulated politics to their own means and have put their fingers into all constituencies to further their greed." it ignores the fallen humanity that WE ALL share (the democratic party does the same thing btw, its called politics), but instead you point to the splinter in the other's eye. forget this bitterness you have against rich people, focus on yourself and your standing with god, and trust that in the end, god's objectives will be above all others. this is no justification of being wealthy, if you think it is, youre missing the point.
i often come to the same point of realization that the kingdom of god is truly socialist, the bible is clear on this in jesus' words to the wealthy man, and in acts. the church alone should lead the way in terms of charity. but not hold government or the private sector accountable to it. they will do what they do in its own interest, that is power and wealth, respectively. nothing will change that here on this earth until god rules the earth (im not going into eschatology or theology but you know what i mean). rick warren is great at finding means to utilize their own goals of power and wealth to further his and his vision of the church's ends. he's worked with gay leaders to help further AIDs treatment, before all the prop h8 stuff. same with the product red campaign, its not that the companies participating really care about giving their money away, in the end they want to increase their bottom line, but its the philanthropists that utilize their marketing to redirect money and aid to the needy.
really, using current financial goings on to justify or even lead into your POV is just short sighted. yes, its the economy, stupid. (not that im calling you stupid either, thats far too eloquent of me.)
Tys, I appreciate your passion about this. I agree that my statements were blunt and tended to be more political than spiritual. Of course I affirm the overall truth you said in the 3rd paragraph that, and I paraphrase, God is only interested in our hearts and is in control no matter what.
You'll notice I didn't attack a single party in our system rather the economic system that is bankrupting us now. Of course, one party (I won't say which one) champions capitalism more, I'd say much more than the other. However, the democrats are also capitalists, pure and simple. I just want the readers who are Christian AND politically active to reconcile the counter-biblical nature of voting for legislative reform that favors tax cuts for the wealthy and more freedom for the private sector... something that I wanted to squeeze into this blog, but will put into the next.
Remember, and I've discussed this before, when one separates faith and politics, there is a subjective line that is drawn. We certainly have the constitutional right to do so, but biblically, it's less clear. Your statement "separate church and state..." meaning don't vote? "...simply do right whats right in the eyes of god." That IS what I believe I'm doing! By voting for greater social and health care funding for the poor and funding it via higher taxes on the wealthy!
i dont see what anything new to the discussion you provided other than argue and cement that we disagree. i acknowledged in the first paragraph that your topic is no longer party vs party and youre trying to simply make it a socialist point of christianity. but you still cant ignore the bipartisan politics that everything else gets lumped into.
i already told you in our previous discussion, i dont vote as a christian, i vote as a citizen of the united states and to what i think is best for the direction of my country. i know as a christian, i will not be judged by who i voted for every 4 years on nov 4th. to vote according to your religion is as lame as voting for anti-abortion rights to which you denounce. its no different. youre just making fiscal morality a bigger issue than abortion, for example. i choose to separate the two and not judge how "christian" (yes quotes) i am by how i vote.
I'm sure it makes you feel good and smart to knock on FoxNews. But don't let that fool you into thinking that you are right. Have you ever considered the possibility that there are good arguments out there besides that channel? (I do think they have somegood arguments). You ask, where are they? I ask, have you looked?
By the way, do you want a theocracy? I think I have an extra one in my pocket.
Kai, my graduate work is over, so now I can devote some time to responding to your points. This post is rather astounding, and I will try to address your main points as briefly as possible.
1. It’s contradictory to say that the market is correcting itself through nationalization. That means that people in DC, who push political interests, are trying to impose their preferred form of ”correction.” The problem is that many of the problems that led to financial crisis were created by earlier attempts at “correction” through political intervention. If their intervention led to our current crisis, how would greater intervention improve things, especially when their primary goal is to push political interests?
2. Using Sweden as an illustration of a successful democratic socialist country does not really bolster your arguments. Firstly, they have probably the highest income taxes in the world at nearly 60%. In addition to that, they impose sales taxes, value added taxes, property taxes, excise taxes. Secondly, industry there is stagnant--no incentive--and their standard of living is not very high. If they were added to the United States as a new state, it would be the poorest state in the country! Thirdly, you mentioned Ikea. You should read what Ikea’s founder has to say about the bureaucratic and counterproductive Swedish government, and how they provide headaches for businesses like Ikea (making similar "greed" claims like the ones you make). Notice that successful Swedish companies in this socialist state are successful because they do business in other places, like the US, that are not socialist!
3. Your criticism of capitalism is based on ad hominem fallacies and non sequiturs. People are anti-socialist because of greed? You think people are not greedy in socialist countries? You say capitalism means, “Make as much as you can, hurt as many people as you can…” You mistakenly assume that capitalism by definition entails “hurting people.” Actually, capitalism entails helping people. When you offer a service or good that someone wants, they will freely exchange with you a good or service that you want! How does that hurt people? You do that every time you buy something. You not only confuse fraud with capitalism, but your utopian view of socialism is not reality. There is just as much fraud and greed in socialist systems, for after all, the socialist humans have the same sinful weaknesses as capitalist humans.
Continued...
4. You say “capitalism is counter-biblical” and “socialism promotes the fruits that scripture has called us to…” The Bible says that the “worker deserves his wages.” (I Tim 5:18) Does that mean that when you work and expect a paycheck, you’re being greedy? If the government takes what the worker deserves, is that a violation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal?” Paul said that “if a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (II Thess 3:10) Does socialism promote this scripture?
You say “capitalism promotes the self.” Could we not argue that socialism promotes the self, because it involves taking from others to give to ourselves? Sweden pays people not to work. Is that biblical? How often do people in socialist countries cheat each other and the government so as to hold on to what little they have? I think you’re just not being realistic, Kai. I would even argue that socialist countries do not promote the “fruits of scripture” but rather promote dependence on man, rather than dependence on God. (Also, how do you explain the fact that the most generous nations on earth are the ones with greater degree of capitalism?)
5. This is an astounding claim: “99 out of 100 of the richest Americans will be in Hell.” Your view is too narrow. Even poor Americans are richer than “99 out of 100” people in the world. By your own standard, all Americans—even the poor Democrats—would go to Hell. This is just bad theology. (I suppose David, Solomon, and Abraham are all in Hell, too, waiting for those Americans.)
6. Kai, I truly believe you have first committed yourself to a political position, and that you are retroactively trying to justify it with the Bible. Your justification is very selective—the early church did not share their goods with the government, but with other believers in need; they gave of their private property; socialism violates the 8th Commandment; socialism violates the scripture in II Thess 3:10 and I Tim 5:18. Moreover, in a previous conversation, you said you did not support pro-life legislation because you don’t believe we should legislate Christian theology, but that is the very case you make for socialism—legislating what you undedrstand to be proper Christian theology. You can’t have it both ways, and there must be an explanation for why your application is situational. I think you have the cart before the horse, first settling on the politics, then afterwards, finding a way to justify it theologically.
If I could make a final, frank observation, I’d like to point out that virtually every person I know that argues for socialism is someone who will not suffer too much from it. Either they come from lots of wealth or contribute very little in taxes. Raising taxes on the wealthy would be insignificant, for they will still be wealthy. They want to impose socialism on everyone else so they can feel better about their privileged estate. (Of all the Christians who advocate socialism based on the early Church in Acts, I don’t think any of them has yet sold everything they had to give to the poor. When I ask for some cash, they never give me anything because they say I already work and I should be responsible. It’s curious to me that they would still advocate socialism that would force me to pay higher taxes to the government. The programs financed by those higher taxes would not require the same demands for responsibile behavior from those who would receive the government benefits! Double standard! (2) The other group is people who don’t pay taxes (or very little)--any benefit they receive will be a lot more than they contribute, because everyone else will pay for it. (And once you start giving that benefit, a constituency is established, and it will never be taken away.) People like me, a majority of people, will suffer so that other people can feel better.
Kai,
Thanks for posting. I did read this awhile ago but am responding now.
I just wanted to add to the points made above by the posters- when talking about devising an economic system that people will partake in, its important to look at how the system of incentives is structured, because that is what people will respond to.
For example, if the system is set up so that the hardest and most successful workers will reap the richest rewards, then you will have people in society competing vigorously in order to 'obtain the carrot.' People will give their best efforts and try to outwork each other in order to gain prestige, wealth, etc. This often leads to high rates of productivity and innovation in society, which is crucial for economic growth, low rates of unemployment, etc. Many of the best-run companies in the world are set up so that their best performers get recognized for their efforts, which helps to keep the company as a whole competitive in the long-run.
If, however, the system is set up so that the hardest workers don't get rewarded for what they do (i.e. socialism/ communism), people will start to 'game the system.' After all, what incentive do individuals have to work hard, if they know that others who did not achieve the same results will reap the same rewards as them? People will have little incentive to work hard and will instead become lazy and give half-assed efforts, since they don't accrue anything for making the extra effort. Look at the Soviet Union and China- when was the last time you bought a quality product from either of those countries? Take away the carrot and the stick, and you take away peoples' incentives to achieve.
Personally, I think the ideal solution is a fair-market, capitalist system, so that you can attract the greatest talent and the hardest workers. The trick is to convince those who reap the most to also sacrifice the most. When people willingly and cheerfully make sacrifices for the greater good (i.e. give their time and money to charity and/or the church), you have the best results in society- a meritocracy where people earn what they keep, but government doesn't need to step in and tax and redistribute, thus forcing the hands of the rich.
Remember, the government is extremely inefficient and bureaucratic, just look at the state-owned enterprises in China or the social security/ medicare systems in the US as an example.
Of course, this is all easier said than done...
Post a Comment