Does anyone have a "Right" to my money?

[vern_humphrey]

Fanatics are looking for vengeance,or “wild justice”,as Francis Bacon would put it.

They’re also seeking to compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy – some cause with which they can identify and bolster their self-images.

 

[Proletarian]

My, aren’t we nasty.

How about Cuba, Venezuela, the Congo, Iran, Iraq and points in between.

By the way, how much foreign aid does your country give?

And yet despite this supposed mass corruption (which you are yet to prove exists) these countries, with the exception of Iraq, have a GDP growth rate that would make the US blush.

I put it to you that you have no evidence to support your possition, and that you are merely trying to rationalise your lack of charity towards those in developing countries. But then again, that’s between you and God. “Those who shut their ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in their own time of need.” (Proverbs 21:13)

I will pray for you vern.
God bless.

 

[jman507]

And yet despite this supposed mass corruption (which you are yet to prove exists) these countries, with the exception of Iraq, have a GDP growth rate that would make the US blush.

I put it to you that you have no evidence to support your possition, and that you are merely trying to rationalise your lack of charity towards those in developing countries. But then again, that’s between you and God. “Those who shut their ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in their own time of need.” (Proverbs 21:13)

I will pray for you vern.
God bless.

Fast paced GDP growth isn’t always a measure that can show a better functioning economy. If you don’t have much GDP to begin with, the opening of new markets can make huge growth. At the same time they are very volatile. If you look at the US GDP pre WWII you’ll see lots of fast paced growth, along with depressions and panics. After a certain base has been built, slow and steady growth is probably the nices way as an ecomic path. It gives lots of visablity for growth, and business know what to expect. People will not be displaced to the same extent when a correct comes. In the US, a slight correction, is enough to cause doom and gloom reports, but the doom and gloom isn’t what it used to be.

As for corruption impeding economic growth, I’ll just have to let that be for the time being. Though maybe I can explain to those I know who had their retirement plans in Enron, how a corrupt practices has benefited them. I don’t think a country that turns a blind eye to something like that, would be a great place to sink investments. At least the US was able to put the head management on trail.

 

[Proletarian]

Fast paced GDP growth isn’t always a measure that can show a better functioning economy. If you don’t have much GDP to begin with, the opening of new markets can make huge growth. At the same time they are very volatile. If you look at the US GDP pre WWII you’ll see lots of fast paced growth, along with depressions and panics. After a certain base has been built, slow and steady growth is probably the nices way as an ecomic path. It gives lots of visablity for growth, and business know what to expect. People will not be displaced to the same extent when a correct comes. In the US, a slight correction, is enough to cause doom and gloom reports, but the doom and gloom isn’t what it used to be.

As for corruption impeding economic growth, I’ll just have to let that be for the time being. Though maybe I can explain to those I know who had their retirement plans in Enron, how a corrupt practices has benefited them. I don’t think a country that turns a blind eye to something like that, would be a great place to sink investments. At least the US was able to put the head management on trail.

These countries just can’t win. If they have slow economic growth you attribute it to corruption and economic mismanagement, and if they have strong economic growth you claim that they are unstable. Either way you will see justification to withhold economic aid.

All I’m hearing is excuses. Do you have any practical solutions jman? Or do you also believe that we should flood these countries with troops in order to create a stable economic environment, similar to that of Iraq?

 

[jman507]

These countries just can’t win. If they have slow economic growth you attribute it to corruption and economic mismanagement, and if they have strong economic growth you claim that they are unstable. Either way you will see justification to withhold economic aid.

All I’m hearing is excuses. Do you have any practical solutions jman? Or do you also believe that we should flood these countries with troops in order to create a stable economic environment, similar to that of Iraq?

Well that’s where the virtue of prudence comes in. One needs to be able to sort through which situations are going to be places for good investment. If any thing the financial markets in the US and in the developed world use a lot of study to assess the situations of which companies are a good place to put in an investment. Do they have a plan that sounds reasonable, and will not leave them in debt long term? Do their leaders seem competent and trustworthy? It also is helped out by standardized accounting practices.

It is not so much a matter of slow growth equals corruption, nor fast paced growth is bad, it is a matter of understanding why a country may be in a certain situation. It is a far better matter to have undeveloped countries to become developed. It is not good to infuse money into a place that does not have fundamentals that will allow that to happen. In that case the best you can do is to hold off and encourage those fundamentals to come into place. Otherwise your just going to end up with corrupt leaders bolster their position, keeping their people in oppression, while you lose your money.

You say I just want to give excuses, I say you need to be prudent. Sometimes you need to step back and try to understand if your helping out or hurting, especially the further up you go from micro-systems to macro-systems. You might want to take a different approach, if you want to loan money out to young person who wants an expensive car, but is wreckless enough to have it wrapped around a telephone pole than a different young person who wants to start a business, and has a decent business plan. In my opinion I think there is good reason to treat the two differently, and if two countries run parallel, I see it only prudent to treat them differently as well.

 

[melensdad]

These countries just can’t win. If they have slow economic growth you attribute it to corruption and economic mismanagement, and if they have strong economic growth you claim that they are unstable. Either way you will see justification to withhold economic aid.

All I’m hearing is excuses. Do you have any practical solutions jman? Or do you also believe that we should flood these countries with troops in order to create a stable economic environment, similar to that of Iraq?

Well believe what you will about the evils of systems, but the nations like Cuba, Venezuala, Iran, etc are all systems that destroy human rights. Human rights are those rights given to us by God. They prevent religious freedom, they oppose most standards of social justice. All are different economic models (although Venezaula is moving toward the Cuban/Marxist model) and all stifle the free will of citizens and force them to be subjects. Not sure how any of them can be defended by anyone who considers himself a Catholic or Christian.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First you say this:

And yet despite this supposed mass corruption (which you are yet to prove exists) these countries, with the exception of Iraq, have a GDP growth rate that would make the US blush.

And then you say this:

I put it to you that you have no evidence to support your possition, and that you are merely trying to rationalise your lack of charity towards those in developing countries. But then again, that’s between you and God. “Those who shut their ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in their own time of need.” (Proverbs 21:13)

If their GDP is so high it would make the US blush, they should be sending us aid.

I will pray for you vern.
God bless.

And I’ll pray for you.

P.S. How much foreign aid does your country send poor nations?

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony, if anything when Vern hasn’t seem to built his idea of social justice on economics. The cornerstone of his ideas is that it is broken into two different modes.

"Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and social action

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Charity and alms-giving are the original and better names. The newer terms are too general. If you’re giving direct aid to someone in need,you’re not doing it on a social level,but on a personal level.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice. "

First you have to know what justice actually is.
Any group of people with an ideological bent can try to correct the structures that they think perpetuate the need for charity,and call it social action or social justice. For socialists,it’s capitalist structures that need correcting. It’s ironic that capitalists have now co-opted socialist terminology and ideas.

And it isn’t so much the structures that perpetuate the need,but rather the inevitable fact that many people are going to be left out of the prosperity of any given economic system.
The need will always be there,regardless of the governmental and economic structures that are in place.

"Anyone can be affluent, as these stories show. All of us (baring those who have disabilities that prevent us from working, or understanding how to deal with money) can become self-supporting. None need rely on the charity of others (again baring those who have disabilities that prevent us from working, or understanding how to deal with money.)

To achieve true social justice, we merely need to inculcate in children the values of work and saving, and an understanding of economics. Everything else needed to end poverty is already in place."

What needs to be inculated even more than that is personal morality and personal charity. The problem of poverty would be mitigated in proportion to the increase in morality and charity.

Economics plays a role, simply because it trying to make clear paths on how good should be traded. The financially poor who are able may need short term charity in the form of services, but long term they need an economic solution. The real direct spirit of charity from social action is the teaching of values, and how to sustain oneself.

What does correcting the structures that perpetuate the need for charity have to do with teaching values? Those are two very different agendas. And while one poor person might need only short-term charity,that can never be the case with the poor as a whole in a country. The need for charity in a country is permanent.

There are no economic solutions that can end poverty on a national scale. An economic system which is benefiting some people will somehow be to the detriment,or to the exclusion of other people. Prosperity and poverty are defined against each other in a society.

 

[Melchior]

Yes, but self management in what sense?

I agree with melensdad that some people are incapable of effective management. This is why I believe that a company that embodies distributionism should be run by specially trained management staff. The difference is that the workers must entrust their management control to others, rather than be subject to a management corps. In this respect the workers will always maintain self management. “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” (Rom 12:4-5)

Isn’t it cool, how the most free country in the world’s citizens give more in charity of their own free choice than any nation in the history of the world? Imagine confiscating hard earned money from the worlds biggest fighter of hunger and giving it to the govenrment to mismanage and squander instead of letting those citizens use it to create jobs and provide dignity in the process and to provide for their own families and invest in others and give more to the church if they choose.

Communism is a failed expirement that always leaves people dead and hungry. Capitalism in a free society, while not perfect give the best incentives to help the poor and history proves this. God gives more to some so there will be some who can give to those in need. There is not sin in hard work and earning a good living. The laborer is worthy of his wages. Jesus has alot to say about such things and he has much to say about those who envy the wages of another. Who are we to judge anothers servant?

Rich people create the jobs and private organization have always far exceeded governement in effective charity.

Mel

 

[cynic]

again, effective at paying the living costs of the sick and elderly? I think not!

Sure the rich often create jobs, but they also aim to keep losbour costs down as much as possible, which leads to poverty for the working.

 

[Proletarian]

Isn’t it cool, how the most free country in the world’s citizens give more in charity of their own free choice than any nation in the history of the world? Imagine confiscating hard earned money from the worlds biggest fighter of hunger and giving it to the govenrment to mismanage and squander instead of letting those citizens use it to create jobs and provide dignity in the process and to provide for their own families and invest in others and give more to the church if they choose.

Communism is a failed expirement that always leaves people dead and hungry. Capitalism in a free society, while not perfect give the best incentives to help the poor and history proves this. God gives more to some so there will be some who can give to those in need. There is not sin in hard work and earning a good living. The laborer is worthy of his wages. Jesus has alot to say about such things and he has much to say about those who envy the wages of another. Who are we to judge anothers servant?

Rich people create the jobs and private organization have always far exceeded governement in effective charity.

Mel

At what point did I start talking about communism?

 

[melensdad]

again, effective at paying the living costs of the sick and elderly? I think not!

Sure the rich often create jobs, but they also aim to keep losbour costs down as much as possible, which leads to poverty for the working.

I don’t consider myself rich, but I do own 4 companies, and am president of an employee owned company that has over $140,000,000.00 in annual sales. The others are retail stores. One thing we don’t do in management is work to lower wages. We do, however work to lower total labor costs, but that often involves INCREASING hourly wages to get more productivity. In fact what I often see are unions that work to increase wages AND lower productivity at the same time by demanding more and more time off, benefits, etc. That forces manager to move production offshore because if they don’t then stock prices drop and investors flee to other companies who will pay higher dividends or have greater stock appreciation. And who owns the stock? Most of the largest stock holders in the US are pension plans and mutual funds that are responsible to retirees.

Managers will gladly pay more, if they get more productivity. Productivity is the key to being competitive in today’s business climate and it also does NOT lead to keeping people poor or workers poverty. Labor unions seem to do a darn good job of holding down the best workers and protecting the slugs who should be fired.

Sorry, but what you say does not ring true. Feel free to have that opinion, but it is an opinion not based in fact. Facts, in fact, are contrary to what you stated.

 

[cynic]

How are companies forced to move production offshore - don’t they do so simply because the option is there?

Workers can be paid workers 2 cents an hour in places like Indonesia. Why not pay them $2 an hour? They can force workers to do 14 hour days, 6-7 days a week with no lunchbreak etc. Why not 9 hours a day and a weekend?

.

Managers will gladly pay more, if they get more productivity. .

More relative to what - to what these people get?

If it weren’t for unions, that could be the situation workers find themselves in the U.S.

 

[cynic]

I don’t consider myself rich, but I do own 4 companies, and am president of an employee owned company that has over $140,000,000.00 in annual sales. The others are retail stores. One thing we don’t do in management is work to lower wages. We do, however work to lower total labor costs, but that often involves INCREASING hourly wages to get more productivity. In fact what I often see are unions that work to increase wages AND lower productivity at the same time by demanding more and more time off, benefits, etc.

.

How much time off? In the U.S there is no guaranteed leave. So how much is “more and more” - a weeks leave? a couple of days? Aren’t employees human? How would you like to spend 12+ hours a day, every day, in the same factory, same office, same lab etc, never getting to see or do anything else. That seems to be the ideal here but it’s not much of a life for anyone.

That forces manager to move production offshore because if they don’t then stock prices drop and investors flee to other companies who will pay higher dividends or have greater stock appreciation. And who owns the stock? Most of the largest stock holders in the US are pension plans and mutual funds that are responsible to retirees.

.

If they are forced to move production offshore - that is because the option exists. The ability is there to pay people 5 cents an hour with a 14 hour day, 7 day work week in countries like Malaysia. Employers can claim it’s a necessity to compete with other companies that already do this. If the ability to exploit third world labour wasn’t there, investors would have nowhere to ‘flee’, and your argument - that managers must keep costs to their absolute minimum either by doing away with unions and forcing through excessive work hours in the U.S , or going offshore - could not be made.

 

[jman507]

How much time off? In the U.S there is no guaranteed leave. So how much is “more and more” - a weeks leave? a couple of days? Aren’t employees human? How would you like to spend 12+ hours a day, every day, in the same factory, same office, same lab etc, never getting to see or do anything else. That seems to be the ideal here but it’s not much of a life for anyone.

If they are forced to move production offshore - that is because the option exists. The ability is there to pay people 5 cents an hour with a 14 hour day, 7 day work week in countries like Malaysia. Employers can claim it’s a necessity to compete with other companies that already do this. If the ability to exploit third world labour wasn’t there, investors would have nowhere to ‘flee’, and your argument - that managers must keep costs to their absolute minimum either by doing away with unions and forcing through excessive work hours in the U.S , or going offshore - could not be made.

A nation can do that, and that’s OK. It will only mean there will be few goods and services around and at higher prices. That’s not exactly any more effective at meeting the needs of the sick and elderly.

 

[jman507]

Charity and alms-giving are the original and better names. The newer terms are too general. If you’re giving direct aid to someone in need,you’re not doing it on a social level,but on a personal level.

First you have to know what justice actually is.
Any group of people with an ideological bent can try to correct the structures that they think perpetuate the need for charity,and call it social action or social justice. For socialists,it’s capitalist structures that need correcting. It’s ironic that capitalists have now co-opted socialist terminology and ideas.

And it isn’t so much the structures that perpetuate the need,but rather the inevitable fact that many people are going to be left out of the prosperity of any given economic system.
The need will always be there,regardless of the governmental and economic structures that are in place.

What does correcting the structures that perpetuate the need for charity have to do with teaching values? Those are two very different agendas. And while one poor person might need only short-term charity,that can never be the case with the poor as a whole in a country. The need for charity in a country is permanent.

There are no economic solutions that can end poverty on a national scale. An economic system which is benefiting some people will somehow be to the detriment,or to the exclusion of other people. Prosperity and poverty are defined against each other in a society.

Oh yes, I can see what your saying. When it is said, “the structures need changing,” that means more there is a need to change the personal attitudes. Don’t get hung up on what you think it means. For that matter, discern what is nominal and what is actual. You want to add, morality and charity, that is perfectly in that frame work, so thank you for adding that. If anything, in those matters it takes prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justices. The actual business and governmental structures need less worry if you have people who have good values. They are secondary to the primary need of bring people up with proper values and morality.

If one can learn to live with-in one’s means, then save a little to maintain’s one’s ability of independance in case that option needs to be exercised, and at the same time help others, either through direct giving, or just sharing one’s person expertise, that would do a lot to not only purpetuate the economy, but help out the poor.

You’ve got that right when it comes to national and governmental aid, it’s really hard for that to be agile enough to meet all people’s needs. It can even work against what a person needs, by cementing in place dependance on the government, and while never working (and being able to work) to get off of it. You shouldn’t treat a child with Down’s syndrome the same as a person who’s gotten in the habit of who’s lazy. One can discern that on a personal level, but it is nearly impossible for a governmental system to help.

 

[melensdad]

How much time off? In the U.S there is no guaranteed leave. So how much is “more and more” - a weeks leave? a couple of days? Aren’t employees human? How would you like to spend 12+ hours a day, every day, in the same factory, same office, same lab etc, never getting to see or do anything else. That seems to be the ideal here but it’s not much of a life for anyone.

Most hourly workers work 8 hour days. Most factory workers get several weeks of vacation per year, as a paid benefit. I live in an area where there were many steel mills and oil refineries. Most have closed down, most were giving 10 to 12 weeks of paid vacation to union workers but 2 to 4 weeks to managers. Sure doesn’t sound like what you describe! A typical employee at the company I work at gets 3 weeks of paid vacation, plus paid holidays. Work days are 8 house, some shifts have overtime at time + 50%.

If they are forced to move production offshore - that is because the option exists. The ability is there to pay people 5 cents an hour with a 14 hour day, 7 day work week in countries like Malaysia. Employers can claim it’s a necessity to compete with other companies that already do this. If the ability to exploit third world labour wasn’t there, investors would have nowhere to ‘flee’, and your argument - that managers must keep costs to their absolute minimum either by doing away with unions and forcing through excessive work hours in the U.S , or going offshore - could not be made.

Do you not realize that we live in a WORLD ECONOMY? Take a look around and you will see people shopping at Wal Mart for the simple reason it has low prices. Those jobs that you say pay 5 cents per hour in Malaysia, China, etc are, in reality, great jobs in those parts of the world. And they pay fair wages in those markets. They provide jobs to people who otherwise would have none, and those economies are booming. You are exaggerating to make your point, and you are simply wrong. Please get your information straight.

But there are plenty of examples of jobs moving here from other places where wages are lower. Have you heard about the auto industry lately?

You seem to have some fantasy that US jobs could simply pay more and more and things will be just swell. Take a look at the auto industry. Toyota is kicking the rear end of GM and Ford. They are doing it HERE IN THE USA with non-union workers who are NOT working the long hours you claim. They are doing it by setting up very productive ways to work and productive ways to build cars that our labor unions are preventing GM and FORD from establishing. Further GM and FORD are stuck with bloated pension plans that add about $1000 to the cost of each car produced. Further the unions are protecting bad employees who are keeping quality down. Why can Honda or Toyota or Subaru build a car here in the US that is higher quality than GM or FORD?

Again, your tired old arguments are simply untrue.

 

[Melchior]

At what point did I start talking about communism?

It’s the logical end result of socialism which your posts in this thread heavily imply if not communism itself. .

 

[Proletarian]

It’s the logical end result of socialism which your posts in this thread heavily imply if not communism itself. .

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” - Helder Camara

 

[cynic]

Most hourly workers work 8 hour days. Most factory workers get several weeks of vacation per year, as a paid benefit. I live in an area where there were many steel mills and oil refineries. Most have closed down, most were giving 10 to 12 weeks of paid vacation to union workers but 2 to 4 weeks to managers.

.

. I’ve never heard of anyone getting 10 weeks leave, anywhere, in any country, but fine, an example of unions gone mad…

If employers were given a free hand, and labour laws and unions were abolished, how many days leave do you think any worker would get? I’d say none. The answer is for government to make sure workers get *some *leave- along with a half hour lunch break etc, and not leave such things up to the discretion of employers, which is the way I’m *guessing * owners and managers would like it.

Do you not realize that we live in a WORLD ECONOMY? Take a look around and you will see people shopping at Wal Mart for the simple reason it has low prices. Those jobs that you say pay 5 cents per hour in Malaysia, China, etc are, in reality, great jobs in those parts of the world. And they pay fair wages in those markets. They provide jobs to people who otherwise would have none, and those economies are booming. You are exaggerating to make your point, and you are simply wrong. Please get your information straight.

.

They are not goos jobs because they don’t enjoy anywhere near the same working conditions employees get in first world nations. They are paid so little they cannot accumulate wealth. Why doesn’t Nike or any of the countless clothing or electronics manufatures pay them $1 U.S an hour instead of 5 cents, why don’t they give them a 40-50 hour week instead of a 70+ week, and offer training - THAT might benefit third world workers. They are after all making 2000% profit margins on the goods. They coul easily pay more, do more, and still save on labour costs. Why? Er, greed?