Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Christianity and Capitalism: Do They Go Together?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/  about capitalism. This follows this post about UFOs. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!




Christianity and Capitalism: Do They Go Together?





Recently Pope Francis slammed capitalism and the free market, advocating redistribution of wealth and other steps to level out incomes between rich and poor. What does the Bible say about Christianity and capitalism?

Stacks of gold coins.
Source: Design Pics/ThinkStock
Last November, after barely eight months in office, the Catholic Church's Pope Francis launched a firestorm of controversy with his recent dictum, Evangelii Gaudium, or "The Joy of the Gospel."
Probably no religious writing in recent history has raised the eyebrows—and ire—of so many for its controversial views on economics and balance of economic power in society. While Catholics do not consider it commanded teaching from the Vatican, the papal exhortation nonetheless spells out the views of the current pope and thus commands respect from Catholics worldwide.
Evangelii Gaudium begins with Francis comparing the joy of receiving the Christian faith and the joy of missionary activity. He calls for reforms in the Catholic Church's missionary outreach—among them a greater emphasis on evangelizing efforts and a renewed call to help the poor.
But the exhortation does not stop there. Francis goes on to call for greater income equality, redistribution of wealth, and fundamental changes to the economic order. This statement from section 204 underscores his concern: "We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market." And he calls for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality" that "attacks the structural causes of inequality."
He goes on to call for a redistribution of wealth and reform of economic structures that would ensure greater equality of income and opportunity. The rich, he says, should share their wealth and calls for a new commandment: "Today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality."

Pros and cons weigh in

Economists, politicians and pundits from both the left and right have lauded or attacked the pope's exhortation. Some called parts of the document "pure Marxism" and suggested that someone else may have written the papal document for him.
Writing for the conservative Townhall magazine, John Goodman commented that a search of almost any introductory economics textbook would fail to turn up the terms "survival of the fittest," "trickle down theories," or "powerful feeding on the powerless," which he termed "slurs used by the left to cast aspersions on free markets and pro-growth markets" ("Papal Economics," Dec. 21, 2013). He went on to maintain that free-market economics, far from being a detriment to society, are the single greatest cause of the prosperity millions enjoy today.
Those on the left, predictably enough, lauded the document. In the Guardian, a popular liberal newspaper, Jonathan Freedland said, "Francis could replace Obama as the pin-up on every liberal and leftist wall" ("Why Even Atheists Should Be Praying for Pope Francis," Nov. 15, 2013).  The New Republic praised Francis' stance on economic issues, while attacking his—and the Catholic Church's—views on abortion and homosexuality.
Even prominent Catholics differed in their reaction, some wondering if the pope has gone too far. Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who cofounded the liberty-oriented Acton Institute and authored the book Defending the Free Market, says in a YouTube video response that while Francis is not motivated by political beliefs, he fails to note that economic prosperity over the past century is largely the result of free market economics.
"How are we to respond to his warnings about mere temporary responses to poverty ... with the demonstrable benefits that we see accruing to the poorest of the poor ... which were made possible by markets globalizing?" (Acton.org, Nov. 27, 2013). How, he asked, can the pope ignore the reality that millions have greater access to jobs and health care, and have risen out of poverty because of the globalization of markets?
To Francis' concern about the dangers of "markets that are unhampered," Sirico asks, "Where are these unhampered markets?"—pointing out that markets everywhere are bounded with regulations of every sort.
All of this raises very important questions about Christianity and economics. Is it God's will that poverty be eradicated in this present age? If not, what is Christianity's responsibility to the poor? Does the Bible espouse any one economic system?

Why has God not eliminated poverty?

Poverty and income inequality are as old as mankind. It may surprise you to learn that the Bible has much to say about poverty, the distribution of wealth, and other economic matters.
"The poor will never cease from the land," Moses was inspired to write in Deuteronomy:15:11. Jesus Christ Himself seemed to echo that reality when the subject of His anointing for burial came up shortly before His trial and death. Asked by His disciples why He approved the use of expensive oil for His anointing rather than having it sold and the money given to the poor, Christ may have shocked the disciples with His answer: "The poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always" (John:12:8).
We know that a powerful and loving God could eradicate poverty at any time. Yet He has not chosen to do so thus far. Is there a reason? The surprising answer is that a time is coming when God will eradicate poverty—but more about that later. The fact is that our Creator has not chosen to do so in this present world.
Yet the Bible is replete with instructions on how to properly treat those less well off. Students of the Bible know that more than 3,000 years ago God began dealing with one nation, ancient Israel. That nation of 12 tribes that descended from Abraham was an agricultural society, and it was given one of the most fertile areas of the Middle East as a result of promises God made to Abraham (Genesis:12:7; Genesis:13:14-15).
Those with large landholdings tended to be better off, while many small farmers eked out a modest living. Those without land or marketable skills often found themselves in poverty. But God did not forget the poor of the land and in His laws made provision for them.
For example, God provided a food supply for the poor to gather, telling landowners: "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them to the poor" (Leviticus:19:9). It's noteworthy that the poor had to put forth the effort to gather the food for themselves. They couldn't just go to a warehouse and claim it or have it delivered to them.
It was also widely understood that family members took care of other family members. And if a woman lost her husband, her children were responsible for taking her in and caring for her.

Jesus' teaching and examples

Jesus Christ lived and taught in an area that was under crushing Roman oppression. During His ministry, He taught and showed by His personal example the right attitude toward those less well off.
Matthew's gospel records a time early in Christ's ministry when more than 5,000 men, plus thousands of women and children, flocked to Him to hear the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Many came from considerable distances, and at the end of the day, rather than send them away hungry, Jesus miraculously fed them from five small loaves of bread and two fish. Read about it in Matthew:14:13-21. Not long afterward He repeated the miracle, this time with a slightly smaller group of 4,000 men, plus women and children.
Each of the Gospel accounts relates dozens of miraculous healings that Christ performed, mostly of poor people. Matthew alone relates many of these acts of compassion. Jesus cleansed lepers (Matthew:8:1-4), healed a paralyzed man (Matthew:9:1-6), gave sight to two blind men (Matthew:9:27-31), and even cast demons out of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (Matthew:15:21-28).
Christ certainly showed compassion for the poor, a compassion He taught to His disciples and by extension to us, both by word and example. Just before His betrayal and death, He summed up what our attitude should be toward those suffering from sickness, isolation and poverty: "In as much as you did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you did it unto Me" (Matthew:25:40).
Christ's disciples didn't forget those examples, and carried on His example of mercy and compassion. Notice Acts:3:2-9. The apostle Peter didn't have gold and silver to give to a lame man who asked for alms. But he was able to give the man something of far greater worth, telling him, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts:3:6).
The New Testament teaching is clear. Today God is not performing such dramatic miracles before the public through His people (though He still does miraculously heal, and we should pray for that). But when we see needs and have the ability to do something to help, it is our duty to respond. That's what our Savior commanded.
Does this mean we literally sell all that we have and distribute it to poor people around us? Many will point to Christ's encounter with a rich young ruler as proof that income redistribution is the duty of all Christians. But let's take a close look at Matthew:19:16-23. Christ told the rich young ruler to "sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me" (Matthew:19:21).
When the young man went away sorrowful "because he had great possessions," Christ used it to illustrate the point that it is often difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. He didn't tell His disciples to proclaim a gospel of income equality, but to understand that devotion to material wealth can be a major hindrance to spiritual growth.
Indeed, the young man here was placing his wealth before God, which is precisely why Jesus told Him to give it away. This wasn't a rule for every person, for some are able to possess wealth while maintaining proper perspective and living by love toward God and neighbor.
The early Church was characterized by wide spreads of income. Some Christians were wealthy and powerful, as was the case with Philemon, to whom the apostle Paul wrote. Others, such as Philemon's slave Onesimus, were certainly much poorer. Yet Paul never condemns wealth. His concern was for people's spiritual, not physical, wealth.

Does the Bible reveal a proper economy?

The Bible reveals that God has much to say about money and wealth. Many of the most famous personalities of the Bible were clearly quite wealthy. Genesis:13:1 tells us that "Abraham was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold." His son Isaac inherited much of his father's wealth and increased it. Genesis 30 relates how Isaac's son Jacob was blessed with vast herds of cattle, sheep and camels, so many that he had to come up with a method for distinguishing his large herds from those of his uncle, Laban.
Centuries later, King David became wealthy during the time of peace he was able to bring to Israel. But it was his son Solomon who became one of the richest men of all time. We find a detailed account of Solomon's wealth and power in 1 Kings 4.
When God gave Israel the Promised Land, it was to be divided up so families received property portions relative to their size (Numbers:26:54, Numbers:33:50-54). Even if land ownership changed hands due to economic or other hardship, title to the land reverted to the original families every 50 years (Leviticus:25:10, Leviticus:25:13-17). This provided for a generally even playing field economically, and prevented individuals from permanently amassing huge amounts of land at the expense of others.
It's clear that God does not condemn wealth or the acquisition of wealth. The fact of wealth means inequality of income. Many today accept that fact but attack the methods used to attain wealth. Throughout history, much wealth has been attained through trade, business and investing. Are these activities wrong? Notice what Jesus Himself taught about the value of increasing wealth through proper investments.
Shortly before His death, Christ gave some final teachings to His disciples. In the parable of the talents in Matthew:25:14-30, He tells of a man taking a trip to a distant country. Before he leaves, he apportions his goods to each of three servants, with the understanding that they will try to increase what they are given.
Those who received five talents and two talents (a talent was about 6,000 denarii, probably ten years' average wages at the time) went out and through various business dealings managed to double their money. A third servant, who received only one talent, dug a hole in the ground and hid it.
What did the wealthy man do on his return? He praised the actions of the two servants who had doubled their money. But his reaction to the lack of return of the third servant was far different. "You wicked and lazy servant ... you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my return I would have received back my own with interest" (Matthew:25:27).
It's difficult to make a case that Jesus condemned wealth or legally acquiring it. He did teach on several occasions, however, that wealth and the pursuit of wealth can be a snare that distracts us from the pursuit of righteousness. What this parable teaches is that we should exercise and build on our spiritual talents, skills and abilities, which to God is infinitely more important than our material wealth.
The Bible does make a case for a liberty-oriented economy—what we would today call true capitalism or, perhaps better put, private property and free exchange.
What then are we to make of the time when the early New Testament Church practiced a communal economy? Notice this in Acts:2:44-45: "Now all who believed were together and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."
Does this teach that Christians should practice a communal economy and way of life? First of all, we must understand that this was a completely voluntary sharing of resources (see Acts:4:32–5:4)—not to be confused with a communist system wherein shared ownership is mandatory, amounting to theft of private property.
Secondly, this was a temporary circumstance during a time of persecution and of thousands of new converts in Jerusalem, many from foreign lands who were remaining for a while to learn from the apostles. Sharing took care of an immediate need. The account in Acts shows that these disciples were soon scattered to other regions (Acts:8:1, Acts:8:4). Later writings give us no indication that this short-term experience with communal living lasted very long.

Universal prosperity will come

For centuries, mankind has tried various systems to arrive at prosperity for all and the elimination of poverty. Monarchies, socialism, Marxism, fascism—all have failed. So-called capitalism, too, despite some free-market benefits, has left millions in its economic wake—being a system of government overregulation and cronyism in which government colludes with business.
What has not been tried is true economic liberty through the government of God and God's economic system. While on earth, Christ's mission was to preach the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God. This gospel foretold a time when Christ would return to earth to set up His Kingdom. Longtime readers of The Good News know this has always been the major focus of this magazine.
The good news is that the universal prosperity, greater equality of income, and lives free from want that Pope Francis writes about will come. But it won't come through man's political parties, papal encyclicals, the churches of today's world or other human organizations. It won't come through political movements calling for redistribution of wealth, for "taxing the rich" or a higher minimum wage.
Your Bible makes hundreds of references to that coming time of peace and prosperity unparalleled in human history. Bible prophecy foretells a time when Christ Himself will return to the earth to rule.
God's Word gives us a few hints about the economy of this future Kingdom. It will be an economy that values and preserves private property rights, a hallmark of a capitalistic economic order: "Everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid" (Micah:4:4).
Those privately owned farms will produce abundant harvests: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; the mountains shall drip with sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it" (Amos:9:13).
This economic order will allow those who work and profit to enjoy the fruits of their labors, but it will also ensure a level economic playing field that gives everyone a just opportunity to prosper.
God will then pour out His Spirit on the nations, and people the world over will receive the loving character of God, meaning that the way of the world will then be to help others in need. This will be accomplished not through government taking from some to give to others, but through an internal change in the hearts of people everywhere to motivate them to generosity and showing true concern for their neighbors. Best of all, God invites you to be part of this exciting future!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Three Reasons The Hollywood Elite Will Never See The Immigration Light—The Housekeeper, The Pool Man And The Lawn Guy

A very interesting post from www.vdare.com on the divide in the United States between those affected by immigration and those not affected.

Three Reasons The Hollywood Elite Will Never See The Immigration Light—The Housekeeper, The Pool Man And The Lawn Guy
By Joe Guzzardi
My old Merrill Lynch friend Arch called me last week after he read my column about Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story.
Arch told me the movie unintentionally gave his Manhattan investment banking pals a good laugh, because the film is financed by Wall Street billionaires, supposedly Moore’s targets.
Paramount Vantage, in association with the The Weinstein Company, produced Capitalism. What most casual movie goers don’t know is that Paramount Vantage is controlled by Viacom, on whose Board of Directors sit Sumner Redstone and former Bear Stearns executive Ace Greenberg, two of the chief villains in the financial meltdown.
The newly formed Weinstein Company got its start thanks to a $490 million private placement, in which Goldman Sachs, another bad guy, acted as an advisor.
In a press release, a Goldman spokesman said:
"We are very pleased to be a part of this exciting new venture and look forward to an ongoing relationship with The Weinstein Company."
Arch couldn’t help but be taken aback, as I was, by Moore’s effrontery—given the numerous associations his movie has with the very people he claims disgust with.
Then my conversation with Arch drifted to how someone with Moore’s blue collar background could be so blind to the key role immigration plays in America’s financial and economic collapse—by, among other things, robbing so many citizens of jobs.
During one of Capitalism’s few touching scenes, Moore took his elderly father back to the site of a long-ago torn-down General Motors plant.
Both Moore’s father and grandfather worked at GM. Although they never earned more than a union hourly wage, they were able to buy houses, take vacations and count on collecting their pensions when retirement rolled around.
Moore and his father briefly reminisced about how, at 2:00 PM every day, the family would drive down to the plant to bring Dad home in time for supper. In the mid-1960s, that was a typical middle-class American experience.
A few frames later, Moore was in Chicago, at the Republic Windows and Doors factory, which had just been shut down. The employees received three days notice and were told not to expect past monies owed them. [In Factory Sit-In, An Anger Spread Wide, by Monica Davey, New York Times, December 7, 2008]
The workers, who staged a sit-in and were accompanied by the reprehensible U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, appeared to be mostly Spanish speaking. According to one account:
"There was another international aspect to this occupation as well. The people working at the plant included blacks and whites but were overwhelmingly Latino. They had ended up at Republic after coming from Honduras, Costa Rica, Uruguay, El Salvador, Mexico, Ecuador, Cuba and Puerto Rico."
Moore would have to be blind not to see the difference between his father’s era and today’s immigrant-dominated work force. (See the Republic Windows and Doors video Hasta la Victoria here.)
I’m certain that the displaced, struggling Americans in Moore’s hometown of Flint would love to have had those Republic jobs. It’s not far from Flint to Chicago. They would have moved.
And when and if the Republic jobs ended, they would have moved again—assuming they could find jobs that hadn’t been taken already by immigrants.
My view: The answer to Arch’s question about why Moore and the Hollywood elite don’t get the problem with immigration—illegal and legal—is that their day-to-day experiences with immigrants are overwhelmingly positive.
Let’s shift neighborhoods from burnt out Flint and Chicago’s Southside to visit Beverly Hills, a part of California heavily populated with rich and famous moguls, with which I am familiar. (I’m a third-generation Californian and lived across the street from Beverly Hills High). (Moore, by the way, lives in a plush upper West Side Manhattan apartment and owns a Michigan beach front vacation house.)
Most wealthy Southern California households have three immigrants working for them---the housekeeper, the pool man and the lawn guy.
Here are sketches of some I have known:
Teresa, housekeeper.
Born in Mexico and a U.S. citizen since the 1986 amnesty, Teresa takes three buses (quite an achievement in Los Angeles) to get to her Pacific Palisades job. Nevertheless, she’s on time and efficiently completes the few tasks asked of her. Teresa has worked for the same family for nearly three decades. When the patriarch died, Teresa took the same three buses to his funeral.
Pedro, pool man.
An American citizen thanks to the 245 (i) program, Pedro, a Honduras native, put this son through the University of Southern California. USC tuition rivals any Ivy League school. This achievement was always praised by Pedro’s employer as a monument to hard work.
And, in a way, it was.
But if you earned exorbitant pool man rates, you too could send your kid to any expensive American university. (SOP: two weekly pool maintenance visits a week for five minutes each, skim off a few leaves, drop some mystery chemicals into the water and repeat the process at other houses all day long. Invoice each client $300 a month, twelve months a year. Pool man—the job we should all aspire to!)
Yano, gardener.
Elderly, third generation Japanese American whose family had been interned during World War II.
To the upper crust, these three and other domestics like them represent immigrants.
Besides their household staff, the beautiful people also interact daily with another non-representative group of immigrants: the Iranian store keeper, the Thai restauranteur, and the Vietnamese manicurist.
Naturally, the merchants are unfailingly gracious. How else could they develop return business?
Finally, the Los Angeles Times provides the jet set with their immigration news, distorted to give the impression that immigrants are either universally productive or consistently cruelly exploited.
Looking back over the decades I lived in Los Angeles, I know only a few families who sent their children to immigrant-dominated public schools or went into the ethnic enclaves, except briefly to watch the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Trojans or go to the hottest new off-beat Mexican restaurant.
Then they got out of Dodge as fast as their Mercedes would take them.
Don’t expect that Hollywood will ever develop a more realistic picture of immigration, which would include the criminal element, overcrowded schools and drained social services.
Think of it this way: If you (as the fashionable people do) only interacted with the best that immigration brings to America and at the same time avoided the immigrant trouble spots, you wouldn’t be reading VDARE.COM or urging Congress not to pass an amnesty.
Instead, you’d probably advocate for more immigration.
That’s how it is. The rich and famous only see the good. When you ask them to think immigration through more fully, they prefer to go to the country club.
Moore will never make a movie about MS-13 or the anchor baby crisis.
The wealthy will never cross over to our side either. They won’t for the simple reason that they don’t have to—except maybe, as Peter Brimelow has suggested, when society itself starts to collapse.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Stopping Government Motors

A great article from http://www.hughhewitt.com/!


Stopping Government Motors
by Hugh Hewitt

President Obama's decision to seize General Motors and convert it into Government Motors is as shocking as it is unpopular. Polling shows, like the president's stubborn insistence that Gitmo be closed and its terrorist prisoners brought stateside, the president's insistence that GM be nationalized is appalling to large majorities of Americans. The socialization of America's biggest brand is not the sort of decision that can be cloaked in head-faking rhetoric. What had been a private company on the verge of bankruptcy is now a government actor competing against private sector companies and using the federal treasury as an enormous unfair advantage in the marketplace. Even if the cost itself was not so staggering, the idea of the federal government declaring itself on the side of one of many competitors is as distasteful as it is unprecedented. It must be reversed.
*** Special Offer ***
In the two days since the nationalization of GM was announced, the callers and e-mailers to my program have been 10 to 1 against the Obamaization of the American car business. The reasons are many and varied. Some simply hate the naked exercise of federal power. Others see the first undeniable instance of socialism understood as the government's ownership of the means of production. Still others cannot believe that the shareholders and bondholders of a once great company have been stripped of their equity while the unions that helped bring the company down, escape nearly unscathed.
Almost everyone grasps immediately the deep unfairness to Ford and even the offshore carmakers that now compete against the massive subsidies of the federal government. How exactly is Ford supposed to bear its 'legacy costs' while GM is relieved of its past mistakes? How will the UAW negotiate fairly with Ford while realizing that every dollar bled from it is a dollar more likely to go to GM, in which the union now holds a huge equity position? How can every federal official interacting with any car company not know and act with the knowledge that the 'home team' - the president's team - is GM.
Corrupt cronyism has never had quite so large as stage as the new American car business, and the ramifications flowing out from Monday's announcement are just beginning to be glimpsed. On the same day the president announced the seizure and blithely declared that he had no interest in running the company, he called Detroit Mayor David Bing to assure him that GM would be staying put in its downtown Motor City headquarters. When the president himself is decreeing the leasing arrangements for the company, it is well and truly nationalized, no matter what he says for the benefit of the still-seduced MSM.
This is a decision that must be reversed. GM must be denationalized, the federal government divested of not just its controlling interest but all of its interest in the company. The Republican leadership must immediately and loudly demand the sale of the federal share in the company, even if it costs a large part of the $50 billion already invested. If the Administration balks - and it will, for why would Rahm Emmanuel willingly give up such an enormous political cudgel as a great car manufacturing company with its myriad and powerful though indirect tools of reward and punishment? - then every GOP candidate in 2010 must begin almost every speech with a reminder that the Democrats have willingly crossed a line that has never been crossed in American history. This is not a loan, not a subsidy, not even a massive assist, they must argue, but a seizure. This is not a continuation of George W. Bush's emergency aid, but a radical expansion of that crisis-driven intervention of late 2008 into a wholesale takeover five months later.
In the effort to reverse this lurch beyond the farthest left fringe of previous Democratic statist urges, individual Americans have a role to play. They have to say no to GM products and services until such time as the denationalization occurs. This is a painful conclusion for those of us with friends still working for the company, and who had supported aggressive efforts to help the private company restructure.
But there isn't any alternative, every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise. Every car or truck purchased from Government Motors is one not purchased from a private car company that competes fairly against all other car companies. Many are rightly afraid that the government will do to automobile production what it has done for Amtrack and the Postal Service, but the risk is much greater than a federally mandated lemon.
The real risk is the enormous power of the federal government will so completely subsidize its own cars in so many ways that the private companies will be crippled or driven wholly from the field. What private company would want to compete against the unlimited resources of the feds?
President Obama has made an enormous, unprecedented grab for power, and fair-minded Democrats should join with Republicans to reverse it, and quickly.