Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

[magnet]

Yes thank you… I have assumed the term originated alongside “Age of Enlightenment” which I find equally specious. No one thought they were in a Dark Age at the time. In my view, the Catholic Church was dominant and worship came first, wealth second. It rather seems a period of relative peace and happiness. This idea of “darkness” compared to “enlightenment” seems like just so much justification, for casting aside faith.

Program notes of a Documentary on the Dark Ages shown on the History Channel:

By the 5th century, the Roman Empire had conquered a stunning expanse of territories and people throughout Europe. After the empire crumbled from within, unable to sustain its own borders, a power vacuum was left in its wake. With no unified power source to claim these lands, chaos abounded as roaming warlords and violent bands of warriors circulated throughout Europe. No longer organized around a unified empire, territory was up for grabs, and power was often seizes by despotic rulers and their armies. This downshift in progress left Europeans more susceptible than ever to the ravages of natural disaster and disease. Waves of warfare together with famine, plague, erratic weather patterns and persecution led to a centuries-long era of economic, political, and cultural decline. The Dark Ages, a gripping two-hour documentary, captures this tumultuous era, from the fall of Rome through the eventual light of progress revealed at the dawn of the Middle Ages. This documentary chronicles this backward recession into violence and disarray, tracing the rise of major leaders and conflicts from Greece and Turkey to the east to France and Spain in the west.
Frankish leader Clovis rose to power at the end of the 5th century, uniting tribes in the
region, converting to Christianity, and forming an alliance with the Catholic Church. King Clovis solidified his power through harsh punishment and repression, an approach to rule that echoed throughout the Dark Ages. Even powerful Emperor Justinian and his dedicated wife Theodora failed to maintain control during this era as Constantinople and the rest of Europe became crippled by the bubonic plague. Some beacons of justice and progress did emerge during the Dark Ages; studious monks such as St. Benedict garnered new philosophical insights, the Byzantines constructed glorious monuments including the Hagia Sophia, and King Charlemagne of France provided a model pathway toward revitalization in the 8th century. Yet despite these flickers of advancement and innovation, from the 5th century through the Middle Ages, Europe was dominated by bitter warfare, crude violence, and the erratic whims of weather and disease. The Dark Ages, with riveting tales from the era and dramatic commentary from historians, provides educators and their students with a fascinating view of the critical historical era between the glory of Rome and the onset of the Medieval era.

1. The Dark Ages era has been described as a time of disease, warfare, violence, and chaos. This documentary also focuses on some of the beacons of light which emerged during this era, including the contributions of monks and the construction of monuments such as the Hagia Sophia.

Cantor, Norman. In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made. (Harper Perennial, 2002).
Gregory Tony. The Dark Ages (Illustrated History of the World Series.) (Facts on File, 1993).
Wood, Michael. In Search of the Dark Ages. (BBC Books, 2005).
Websites
An excellent site from the BBC on the history of the Dark Ages: bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/dark_origins.shtml
A site from the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Age of Justinian: metmuseum.org/toah/hd/just/hd_just.htm
Biography and links on the life of Charlemagne: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/einhard.html

 

[stinkcat_14]

“Gaining at someone else’s expense” is what we Capitalists call “risk”. We know there is the chance to fail and some else will probably profit from our failure…but we take the risk.
If your goal is to cause someone to fail, that is evil and backfires more than it succeeds.

That is not what I mean by gaining at someone else’s expense. I mean that when my steel mill produces smoke, it makes my neighbor’s home values lower. Many capitalists may not particularly care about whether their neighbors home values go up or down. And there is no inherent tendency for them to care. Or what about fisherman who fish in the ocean. In international waters there are no property rights, so if a fisherman overfishes today it may harm future generations of fishermen. But they have no particular reason to care about future fishermen, particularly when they know their competitors don’t care either.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

1. The Dark Ages era has been described as a time of disease, warfare, violence, and chaos. This documentary also focuses on some of the beacons of light which emerged during this era, including the contributions of monks and the construction of monuments such as the Hagia Sophia.

Your first extended quote from the History Channel (ugggh!), is the kind of ersatz history I am bemoaning. I rather like the second idea, that there were good things and bad things happening. There always are.

BTW, the Germanic forces did not overrun the Empire in one drive. There were incursions off and on, and the Vandals, Ostrogoths were sort of integrated and intermarried with the Romans for a while. I kind of think that it was the spirit of Christianity that broke down the hunger for empire, for militarism. (The Germanic tribes were likely also extracting revenge, for earlier domination. Something the USA will be facing in years to come… )

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is not what I mean by gaining at someone else’s expense. I mean that when my steel mill produces smoke, it makes my neighbor’s home values lower. Many capitalists may not particularly care about whether their neighbors home values go up or down. And there is no inherent tendency for them to care. Or what about fisherman who fish in the ocean. In international waters there are no property rights, so if a fisherman overfishes today it may harm future generations of fishermen. But they have no particular reason to care about future fishermen, particularly when they know their competitors don’t care either.

I see.

The Steel mill vs real estate values would be a property rights issue. You know how Capitalists feel about rights. If the steel mill was there before the homes were built, then the home owners would have to accept the smoke. Remember, the government cannot tell the steel mill what to do.

However, if the steel mill was built in an area where homes existed and began causing property values to drop due to smoke, then obviously the home owner’s rights are being violated. The government cannot allow this. The steel mill would be obligated to respect the rights of the home owners. If the law empowered the government to shut down a business until a property rights issue was solved, then that is what could happen. The government does not regulate the steel mill of tell it how to run its business, but if “rights” are violated THEN the government steps in.

In a perfect Capitalist society. the owners of the steel mill would have diligently built the mill where it would not violate anyone’s rights,

As far as fishermen in international waters…see my story about the lumber company.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I see.

The Steel mill vs real estate values would be a property rights issue. You know how Capitalists feel about rights. If the steel mill was there before the homes were built, then the home owners would have to accept the smoke. Remember, the government cannot tell the steel mill what to do.

I agree that it would be a property rights issue, however there is no reason to presume that a steel mill would have the right to pollute air that it doesn’t own. After all their property rights only extends on their land and their air above it, the air above the neighbors land belongs to the neighbor. That is the way the air rights run. But the other problem is one of enforcability, if their are ten steel mills in my neighborhood and smoke comes onto my property how do I know what steel mill needs to be sued? In an environment where property rights are either not well defined or hard to enforce, you can guarantee that the neighbors property rights will be ignored if it is profitable to do so.

As far as fishermen in international waters…see my story about the lumber company.

There is a huge difference between the forest owner and the fishermen in international waters. The forest owner makes an intertemporal decision about the optimal harvest path for his trees. If he doesn’t harvest today he can harvest tomorrow. That is because he owns the trees. But the fishermen don’t own the fish, so if they don’t fish today, someone else might and there might not be fish tomorrow.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No one does it today, but this was pretty much how things were done in the United States from 1800 to about the mid 1880’s

I would argue that the existence of legalized slavery is a textbook example of a government that has been captured by business elites.

 

[Seraphim73]

No. I believe capitalism produces too much greed to be ordained by God.

What economic system doesn’t run on “greed?”

 

[stinkcat_14]

What economic system doesn’t run on “greed?”

I would say that greed is a problem in all economic systems, although one might be able to argue that greed can cause more danger in a capitalist economy. The reason being is that capitalism does tend to incorporate a lot of borrowed money in its system. That combined with bankruptcy laws may encourage excessive risk taking, since if I can just declare bankruptcy and not have to pay my bills I might make riskier investments.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would argue that the existence of legalized slavery is a textbook example of a government that has been captured by business elites.

We are back to slavery?

OK, if slavery is legalized, business elites ( who want slaves) need not capture government.

If laws are passed against slavery business elites COULD bribe government to look the other way.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. We are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as our own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

We can deal with one another only in terms of reason and by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. We are all free.

Slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist society.

Slavery did exist in the United States from 1789 to 1865. But it was not intended. The Declaration of Independence made that clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Slavery existed in agrarian, feudal states that did not have a Free Market as compared to other non-slave states of the day.

Remember the United States, ALMOST a pure Capitalist society, was the first and only country to fight a war to end slavery. This was a morally correct thing to do and perhaps should have been done sooner. From an economic/Capitalistic position…slavery would have died out anyway. Prosperity creates freedom.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We are back to slavery?

OK, if slavery is legalized, business elites ( who want slaves) need not capture government.

No, it means they already have captured government. You said that slavery would not exist under true capitalism, since it violates property rights. Now, the fact that something that violates property rights is allowed to exist is due to the fact that they have already captured the government to make it legal in the first place.

If laws are passed against slavery business elites COULD bribe government to look the other way.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. We are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as our own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

We can deal with one another only in terms of reason and by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. We are all free.

Slavery cannot exist in a Capitalist society.

Slavery did exist in the United States from 1789 to 1865. But it was not intended. The Declaration of Independence made that clear:

Slavery existed in agrarian, feudal states that did not have a Free Market as compared to other non-slave states of the day.

Remember the United States, ALMOST a pure Capitalist society, was the first and only country to fight a war to end slavery. This was a morally correct thing to do and perhaps should have been done sooner. From an economic/Capitalistic position…slavery would have died out anyway. Prosperity creates freedom.

In other words, true capitalism never actually existed because the business elites had captured the government to let an obvious violation of property rights exist.

 

[Abu]

ThomasJMullally #104
This is incorrect, For every piece of scripture where Jesus value the merchant or owner of land, there are ten where he decries them. And show me where our Lord decries laziness?

The ignorance here is endemic. Why can’t the poster quote what he can only surmise? Because he doesn’t know and is clueless, which is why his whole tenor is against Christ’s teaching on condemning laziness and encouraging entrepreneurship.

So, in Matthew 25:14-30, we find Jesus’ Parable of the Talents.
Here Jesus specifically in verse 26 shows his lord declaring “You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown….” The poster can read the rest where in verse 30 “the unprofitable servant” is cast “into the outer darkness.”

As with all parables, its meaning is multi-layered. Its eternal meaning relates to how we use God’s gift of grace. With regard to the material world, it is a story about capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of economic resources. It is a direct rebuttal to those who insist that business success and Christian living are contradictory.

Christ shows the reality that wealth needs to be produced before it can be distributed. In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.
2. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.
3. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.
4. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

“We can this affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.” [My emphasis].
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].

It is to be hoped that no one is misled by foolish misrepresentations by incompetents.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would say that greed is a problem in all economic systems, although one might be able to argue that greed can cause more danger in a capitalist economy. The reason being is that capitalism does tend to incorporate a lot of borrowed money in its system. That combined with bankruptcy laws may encourage excessive risk taking, since if I can just declare bankruptcy and not have to pay my bills I might make riskier investments.

Greed does not exist in a Capitalist Society.

Capitalists work and produce for our own "self interest"

The baker does not get up at 3AM and make bread just for you to eat. He does it so HE and his family can eat. This is true Self Interest. Sadly this is seen by socialists and statists as greed. It is not.

We are supposed to provide for ourselves and our family. It is the nature of man to WANT to provide the best he can. If he can do more for himself he raises the standards for his family as well as the community.

There is nothing wrong with Self Interest. Capitalists wallow in it. It is not greed.

Greed is an equal opportunity employer. We are all capable of being greedy. But I submit that there are fewer greedy Capitalists than those who produce nothing and feed off of the productive. That is greed in my estimation.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In other words, true capitalism never actually existed because the business elites had captured the government to let an obvious violation of property rights exist.

Yes.

Or you could say that government grew to powerful and captured the economy and eliminated ALL rights.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Greed does not exist in a Capitalist Society.

Ok, tell me if greed exists, how does Capitalism run it out of town?

Capitalists work and produce for our own "self interest"

Some things in your self interest can be greed and some things are not greed. If I buy a house with zero down payment intending to walk away if the house goes down in value, then that in my opinion is greed.

The baker does not get up at 3AM and make bread just for you to eat. He does it so HE and his family can eat. This is true Self Interest. Sadly this is seen by socialists and statists as greed. It is not.

I never claimed this was greed, so I don’t know what your point is.

We are supposed to provide for ourselves and our family. It is the nature of man to WANT to provide the best he can. If he can do more for himself he raises the standards for his family as well as the community.

There is nothing wrong with Self Interest. Capitalists wallow in it. It is not greed.

Of course I never claimed that there was anything wrong with self interest, so once again, what is your point? I am not sure that you really understand the nuances of economics well, it might be helpful for you to learn a little more economics.

Greed is an equal opportunity employer. We are all capable of being greedy. But I submit that there are fewer greedy Capitalists than those who produce nothing and feed off of the productive. That is greed in my estimation.

I thought you said greed cannot exist in capitalism? So now capitalists are greedy too?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes.

Or you could say that government grew to powerful and captured the economy and eliminated ALL rights.

In other words, true capitalism never really existed anywhere. It is kind of like the marxists who claim that marxism was never implemented correctly.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

I would say that greed is a problem in all economic systems, although one might be able to argue that greed can cause more danger in a capitalist economy. The reason being is that capitalism does tend to incorporate a lot of borrowed money in its system. That combined with bankruptcy laws may encourage excessive risk taking, since if I can just declare bankruptcy and not have to pay my bills I might make riskier investments.

Yes… unneeded, destructive, overambitious investments… a lot of dust kicked up and labor expended, for nothing.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

In other words, true capitalism never really existed anywhere. It is kind of like the marxists who claim that marxism was never implemented correctly.

It’s true-- I can’t believe we are communcating with utopian capitalists. I thought capitalism was at best, pragmatic!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Mr. Noe, the rationalization that you will see through this thread, is the the US is not true capitalism. I have disputed this vigorously.

The savage abuses of capitalism that have existed for 250 years, are inherent whether or not there is government bureaucracy. Today the worst abuses are in the private, corporate bureaucracies, which these people think somehow would melt away if only government was eviscerated. However deregulation since Reagan has not dissipated the abuses, they have grown. The intertwined public/ private bureaucracies that bilk and enslave the common man have burgeoned in my lifetime, but it is not enough for these people. They want everybody in the world to have that overarching ambition and greed, aspire to be capitalists-- that is what fuels the system. That is the jujitsu used on the 99%. (And meanwhile nature is being destroyed…)

You’ll get no argument from me about deregulation since Reagan or the need to protect the environment. But you don’t need to call me Mr. Noe . Sy or Sy Noe works fine for me.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Corporations are owned by stock holders. Anybody can own stock, even poor people. Is anybody who buys stock greedy? Those people who chose to buy things instead of stocks or bonds might just as well have poured their money into a rat hole. The money is gone once you have spent it. The fact that so much wealth is in the hands of the upper 1 or 2% is a testament to how many people throw their money away rather than invest it.

Capitalism is oriented toward wealth creation. Communism and Socialism are oriented toward taking away wealth rather than creating it.

My hunch is that the betterment of humanity is more likely to be God-ordained, and the taking away wealth once it has been created is not God-ordained.

Sure the poor can own stock if they have any disposable income left after trying to merely survive with food, shelter, medical needs and other essentials. For your average poor person I’d safely say stock is probably not on top of such a list. Jesus didn’t say hey poor person go buy some stock and all of your troubles shall cease. And not many stockholders actually sit in the board rooms where corporate decisions are made. A thread where it is said the poor can just go out and buy stocks is not a serious thread to me. So I shall leave it at that.

 

[sallybutler]

Plus, buying stock is not necessarily putting capital into a company in order to build something. Unless you buy from the company in an IPO or when the company issues shares, you are just gambling that you will be able to find someone else that will pay you more than you paid or that the company will pay dividends. Since many companies don’t pay dividends, you are gambling that you will find a buyer.

For the most part, owning stock of a company on the NY exchange or NASDEX does not mean that you have put up capital to build a business. It means you want to own what others have built, not what you have helped build.