Are capitalistic and conservative ideals sinful?

[WillieWonka]

Out of necessity of maintaining a structure that keeps the rich rich and saves them face. If they didn’t give those things, the threat of revolution would rise. It may be true that those in power may do a good turn, but that doesn’t change the fact the system is driven toward profit before people. If these people in power were truly about the people there would not be any such thing as poor people.

So what? The huge social spending is still there, and it’s in the world’s primary capitalistic economy. So, what’s the beef?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I would be happy if everyone has enough nutritious food in their belly, they sleep in an adequate house, and receive necessary basic medical care from conception to natural death. Hearing about some stories about how older people in my life lived, our social programs can be considered luxurious.

Sorry pal, i spoke to soon. My mistake. I agree with this.

 

[WillieWonka]

Capitalism still enslaves people in the third world. That is something that needs to be taken care of.

Our social programs do give what a person is worth to the best of its ability. The problem is these programs are unaffordable. I am a minimalist when it comes to social programs. I do not think a person has a right to live in a house the same size as mine and get a subsidy for it. I also do not think breast augmentation, face lifts and tummy tucks are a necessity in most cases. I would be happy if everyone has enough nutritious food in their belly, they sleep in an adequate house, and receive necessary basic medical care from conception to natural death. Hearing about some stories about how older people in my life lived, our social programs can be considered luxurious.

Can you tell us how capitalism enslaves Third Worlders? And what do you mean by enslavement?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So what? The huge social spending is still there, and it’s in the world’s primary capitalistic economy. So, what’s the beef?

Yeah!!! so what if people are starving and living on the poverty line and are homeless for no other reason then because profit is more important then people. Your great.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“Socialism” can mean so many things that this isn’t really helpful. I agree that if the government is given total control of the means of production, the result is inevitably idolatrous and evil. However, I find it odd when “conservatives” complain bitterly about the government engaging in welfare programs for the poor but have no complaints about a large military, which is far more conducive to idolatry.

Edwin

Socialism means only one thing.

A large military has kept our country safe and free for many decades and it is cowardly to scorn those who gave their lives that you might complain in freedom.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yeah!!! so what if people are starving and living on the poverty line and are homeless for no other reason then because profit is more important then people. Your great.

Who is starving in America? Where?

The poverty line is an arbitrary amount used by governement in allocation of various payments. It is the line where they say one can purchase adquate food, housing, and shelter. One qualifies for some programs below the poverty line, others between 1 and 2 times, others betwen 3 and 4. It is also factored for different areas of the country.

So, I ask again, what’s the beef?

 

[fish90]

Can you tell us how capitalism enslaves Third Worlders? And what do you mean by enslavement?

In the third world, businesses hire the poor at a fraction of the cost they would in the first world. That fraction is barely enough to feed them for a year, yet there profit margins are out-of-this-world. Countries know this and these actions are justified through the idea that “they are at least getting something.”

I was arguing against communism one time and this was the opponents strongest argument. Also, the arguments of the immorality of communism feel short because the opponents felt there has never been perfect communism in existence. That argument is for another time and place.

 

[fish90]

Who is starving in America? Where?

The poverty line is an arbitrary amount used by governement in allocation of various payments. It is the line where they say one can purchase adquate food, housing, and shelter. One qualifies for some programs below the poverty line, others between 1 and 2 times, others betwen 3 and 4. It is also factored for different areas of the country.

So, I ask again, what’s the beef?

Profit is a good thing when it is used to provide for the common good. Rich people are good because they employ people. Marxism will never work which is kind of close to “spreading the wealth.” Scary times.

People in the third world would be very happy living under our poverty line. Then again, they would not be spending their welfare on new cars or big tvs or any other luxury. ONLY THE NECESSITIES.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Who is starving in America? Where?

The poverty line is an arbitrary amount used by governement in allocation of various payments. It is the line where they say one can purchase adquate food, housing, and shelter. One qualifies for some programs below the poverty line, others between 1 and 2 times, others betwen 3 and 4. It is also factored for different areas of the country.

So, I ask again, what’s the beef?

You are trying to define poverty out of existence, but it doesn’t change the fact that people are living in conditions that are abusive to their natures and dignity as persons.

 

[WillieWonka]

In the third world, businesses hire the poor at a fraction of the cost they would in the first world. That fraction is barely enough to feed them for a year, yet there profit margins are out-of-this-world. Countries know this and these actions are justified through the idea that “they are at least getting something.”

I was arguing against communism one time and this was the opponents strongest argument. Also, the arguments of the immorality of communism feel short because the opponents felt there has never been perfect communism in existence. That argument is for another time and place.

Whenever one deals with wages, it’s also instructive to look at prices. For example, it makes little sense to compare a wage in Indonesia to a US wage without considering the prices of food, housing, and clothing in Indonesia.

A different analysis might look at the wage and determine what standard of living it allows. Few who complain about the difference between a US and Indonesian wage have any idea what the prevailing price levels are.

One might also ask the guy making that wage what he thinks.

And how about this idea a given job should be paid the same all over the world?

In terms of wages and equality, consider the fifth grade teacher in the US. Are they all paid the same? Is there a US fifth grade teacher wage? What does North Dakota pay? What does New York pay?

If ND pays less than NY, is that unfair? Does one have a moral obligation to pay teachers in ND what they get in NY?

How about the ftfth grade teacher with 30 years experience. He makes more than the one with no experience. Unfair? Suppose we compare the new teacher in ND with the 30 year teacher in NY. There is a big wage difference. Is that a problem?

But, someone objects, “You’re an idiot. It’s a lot more expensive to live in NY. How about that?”

Next time you are arguing wth that communist, ask him how much a loaf of bread costs in Sumatra.

 

[MindOverMatter]

People in the third world would be very happy living under our poverty line.

Anyone would be happy to have more then they had before. This doesn’t make poverty non-existent or a non-important or non-real issue.

Then again, they would not be spending their welfare on new cars or big tvs or any other luxury. ONLY THE NECESSITIES.

Poor people living on the poverty line can’t afford to spend their money on luxuries.

 

[Bluegoat]

THe West depends on the people in other nations to produce their wealth for them. Through their workers, through growing luxury foods on their land (while they can’t grow the food they need) and by using their natural resources at low low prices. The workers are hired at pricec that do not cover the cost of living in a decent way, they work in unsafe conditions, their surroundings and environment are often abused and polluted, they recieve little or no health care. All of these are things we wouldn’t allow in our countries.

Now, their governments would seem to be at fault. However, the West is very careful to keep these things the same in far off countries, through organizations like the IMF, or just plain political strong-arming, and making sure the elite in the exploited nations are very comfortable and a good army to suppress uprisings… The prosperity of the West wouldn’t be at nearly the level it is without the poverty of much of the rest of the world, and so Western governments actually try to maintain the status quo. This is also true to a lesser extent within countries like the USA, where the rich depend upon a poor underclass to maintain their standard of living.

The other people that are bilked are future generations - that is, our prosperity depends upon us using resourses at a rate that ensures they will be used of in a relativly short time - so the future will likely be less prosperous.

There are only a limited amount of resources and energy available to us. Even at the level of the entire universe, there is still a finite amount. But our economic model takes unlimited growth as one of its fundamental premises. It assumes that more growth is always possible, and actually needs it to function. Our banking system would fall apart if growth were to stop. Thus it depends on making people more and more rich with material goods, and depends on making wants into needs. Unfortunately, this premise is not in line with the actual facts, which suggests that it is a fundamental error.

And that particular error is, I suspect, where many of the problems in our economy lie. As far as I know, there is no modern economic system that starts from a more sound premise, though I know this is an area that many economists are looking at right now. Interestingly, the Church also recognizes the fall-out of that error as leading to problematic behaviors and actions in reality.

On another note - I agree that it would be the best if the rich would willingly share their excess with those who lack. I also think it would be best if people refrained from having abortions, or contributed money for health care and roads on their own. But I still think that government should act on such problems if required.

 

[fish90]

Anyone would be happy to have more then they had before. This doesn’t make poverty non-existent or a non-important or non-real issue.

Poor people living on the poverty line can’t afford to spend their money on luxuries.

With respect,
I never said it was a nonexistent or a non-important or non-real issue. Of course, anybody would be happier to have more than before. I was trying to point out that the American version of poverty is entirely different than the third world country form of poverty. Have you ever read stories of people who go a couple days without food in third world countries? In this country, God bless, the beggars on the street actually know where the soup kitchen is.

Your second point has its points. I remember serving at a Thanksgiving charity. We were giving out meals to the less fortunate for the holiday. I felt really good until I walked out the food and I saw a newer model Hyundai Elantra Limited, I believe. I thought to myself, “these people are asking for money and my family is driving a 20 year old car to keep food on the table, pay tuition, etc.” I can only conclude that the poor in this country in most cases live much better than the poor in third world nations. The poor in these countries would not even have the funds to own a car which is a luxury.

I mean to argue with the respect you and the less fortunate deserve.

God Bless,
fish90

 

[MindOverMatter]

THe West depends on the people in other nations to produce their wealth for them. Through their workers, through growing luxury foods on their land (while they can’t grow the food they need) and by using their natural resources at low low prices. The workers are hired at pricec that do not cover the cost of living in a decent way, they work in unsafe conditions, their surroundings and environment are often abused and polluted, they recieve little or no health care. All of these are things we wouldn’t allow in our countries.

Now, their governments would seem to be at fault. However, the West is very careful to keep these things the same in far off countries, through organizations like the IMF, or just plain political strong-arming, and making sure the elite in the exploited nations are very comfortable and a good army to suppress uprisings… The prosperity of the West wouldn’t be at nearly the level it is without the poverty of much of the rest of the world, and so Western governments actually try to maintain the status quo. This is also true to a lesser extent within countries like the USA, where the rich depend upon a poor underclass to maintain their standard of living.

The other people that are bilked are future generations - that is, our prosperity depends upon us using resourses at a rate that ensures they will be used of in a relativly short time - so the future will likely be less prosperous.

There are only a limited amount of resources and energy available to us. Even at the level of the entire universe, there is still a finite amount. But our economic model takes unlimited growth as one of its fundamental premises. It assumes that more growth is always possible, and actually needs it to function. Our banking system would fall apart if growth were to stop. Thus it depends on making people more and more rich with material goods, and depends on making wants into needs. Unfortunately, this premise is not in line with the actual facts, which suggests that it is a fundamental error.

And that particular error is, I suspect, where many of the problems in our economy lie. As far as I know, there is no modern economic system that starts from a more sound premise, though I know this is an area that many economists are looking at right now. Interestingly, the Church also recognizes the fall-out of that error as leading to problematic behaviors and actions in reality.

On another note - I agree that it would be the best if the rich would willingly share their excess with those who lack. I also think it would be best if people refrained from having abortions, or contributed money for health care and roads on their own. But I still think that government should act on such problems if required.

Thanks for that liberating message. You manage to say more or less everything i wanted to say. Other people try to blame the victim. But there is no point in ignoring the fact that there is a fundamental flaw in the system, because ultimately this flaw is going to effect us all and all future generations. Peace and God bless.

 

[WillieWonka]

THe West depends on the people in other nations to produce their wealth for them. Through their workers, through growing luxury foods on their land (while they can’t grow the food they need) and by using their natural resources at low low prices. The workers are hired at pricec that do not cover the cost of living in a decent way, they work in unsafe conditions, their surroundings and environment are often abused and polluted, they recieve little or no health care. All of these are things we wouldn’t allow in our countries.

Now, their governments would seem to be at fault. However, the West is very careful to keep these things the same in far off countries, through organizations like the IMF, or just plain political strong-arming, and making sure the elite in the exploited nations are very comfortable and a good army to suppress uprisings… The prosperity of the West wouldn’t be at nearly the level it is without the poverty of much of the rest of the world, and so Western governments actually try to maintain the status quo. This is also true to a lesser extent within countries like the USA, where the rich depend upon a poor underclass to maintain their standard of living.

The other people that are bilked are future generations - that is, our prosperity depends upon us using resourses at a rate that ensures they will be used of in a relativly short time - so the future will likely be less prosperous.

There are only a limited amount of resources and energy available to us. Even at the level of the entire universe, there is still a finite amount. But our economic model takes unlimited growth as one of its fundamental premises. It assumes that more growth is always possible, and actually needs it to function. Our banking system would fall apart if growth were to stop. Thus it depends on making people more and more rich with material goods, and depends on making wants into needs. Unfortunately, this premise is not in line with the actual facts, which suggests that it is a fundamental error.

And that particular error is, I suspect, where many of the problems in our economy lie. As far as I know, there is no modern economic system that starts from a more sound premise, though I know this is an area that many economists are looking at right now. Interestingly, the Church also recognizes the fall-out of that error as leading to problematic behaviors and actions in reality.

On another note - I agree that it would be the best if the rich would willingly share their excess with those who lack. I also think it would be best if people refrained from having abortions, or contributed money for health care and roads on their own. But I still think that government should act on such problems if required.

Perhaps we can trace the economic trajectory of some of those exploited folks.

Were the Koreans exploited by the West when they decided they wanted prosperity? Well, the west shared technology and built plants there. People left the paddies and went into the factories. The wages were low and the government invested the profits in more plants and industry. More Korrans went to work and wages rose. They enrolled in foreign universities, then built more of their own. They produced good products and began to compete on the world market. Then they added cars and heavy equipment industries. And now, Korea is a modern and vibrant economy.

How about Ireland? The same thinhg happened when the government encouraged multi nationals to locate there and provided a favorable tax climate. A conntry that had been impovershed for four humdred years became very prosperous. Wages were low at the start, but that’s how an economy grows. it invests its profits in more industry and puts more people to work.

Spain? Thailand? Taiwan? China? Indonesia? The same model keeps working over and over. It’s the same model the US used to achieve prosperity. China dropped communism and embraced capitalism and prosperity began to flow. India is abandoning socialism, and embracing capitalism, and prosperity is following. (Note all the whining because Indians are staffing US call centers.)

Had these countries listened to the moralists, they would still be squatting in the fields in poverty.

The notion that all the profits of a developing economy must be funneled to the workers is a recipe for economic disaster.

The problem for some folks is that market capitalism driven by greed has achieved more prosperity for more people than any system, church, religion, ideology, or government in history. When faced with prosperity driven by capitalism, or poverty driven by morality, everyone chooses capitalism.

I see no reason to think continued economic growth is an error. Why is it an error?

 

[WillieWonka]

Thanks for that liberating message. You manage to say more or less everything i wanted to say. Other people try to blame the victim. But there is no point in ignoring the fact that there is a fundamental flaw in the system, because ultimately this flaw is going to effect us all and all future generations. Peace and God bless.

Blame the victim? First, what makes him a victim? People all over the world have rejected that whine and have gone to work for themselves and built their own self sufficient economies.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Blame the victim? First, what makes him a victim? People all over the world have rejected that whine and have gone to work for themselves and built their own self sufficient economies.

Yep. Perhaps some people are just lazy? I’m sorry i must have just been imagining things. We are obviously seeing life through 2 completely different points of view.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yep. Perhaps some people are just lazy? I’m sorry i must have just been imagining things. We are obviously seeing life through 2 completely different points of view.

Could be. My side relies on itself and builds vibrant economies and productive nations measured in goods, services, and personal freedom.

 

[Langdell]

When thinking about third-world countries, it’s important to keep in mind that (in most instances) people take the factory jobs because, however low-paying they are by our standards, they’re better than the other options that are available. The low-paying jobs enable people in non-industrial countries to begin to build their productivity and eventually command salaries more in line with the first world. India and China are both heading in that direction.

The alternative is to force industry to pay above-market wages, which is good for the people who are lucky enough to get those higher-paying jobs, but not so good for the population as a whole, since it makes the country less attractive to employers.

That being said, fraud and slave labor are abhorrent practices, as I think everyone here would agree.

.

 

[Bluegoat]

When thinking about third-world countries, it’s important to keep in mind that (in most instances) people take the factory jobs because, however low-paying they are by our standards, they’re better than the other options that are available. The low-paying jobs enable people in non-industrial countries to begin to build their productivity and eventually command salaries more in line with the first world. India and China are both heading in that direction.

The alternative is to force industry to pay above-market wages, which is good for the people who are lucky enough to get those higher-paying jobs, but not so good for the population as a whole, since it makes the country less attractive to employers.

That being said, fraud and slave labor are abhorrent practices, as I think everyone here would agree.

.

This is undoubtedly a problem, but I don’t think it is possible, as a Christian, to support really unfair work practices. Worker safety is a good example - in many developing nations, workers are exposed to chemicals we would never agree to have people exposed to here. A fairly basic tenet in Catholic moral philosophy is that the ends cannot justify the means, so if practices are unfair or unsafe, it doesn’t matter that they might be better than no job at all, though this seems terribly harsh. I think there must be a better way to address it.

India and China are interesting examples - but rather illustrate the larger problem of the myth of endless growth. If both of those nations actually develop a sizable middle class, what it means to be middle class will have to change, because there will not be enough resources to go around. They are also doing huge damage to their local environment in the race to become more wealthy. Ultimately that may affect their ability to feed themselves, and us.