Wealth and Catholic teaching

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

Again, a mercantilistic view of economics.

The number of companies is not limited. If more people worked to potential, there would be more companies, more jobs, and more openings at the top.

Further, you imply a static world – where those who start at the bottom are condemned to stay at the bottom. That’s unrealistic. People can and do work their way up. And the more companies there are, the more dynamic the economy, the more opportunity there is to rise.

.

What makes you think that there is an unlimited potential for every individual to own his or her own business? The free market is limited by consumer population/resources. To start a busines ussually requires existing capital aswell. (And of course you couldn’t get any staf because everyones tyring to start their own business?!!?) If there weren’t any employees there’d be no economy. But you’ve conveniently labeled anyone who isn’t self employed or in upper management a loser. It’s you who is being simplistic.

 

[misterX]

I was watching this evangilist on cable the other day. He was from hillsong ministries (australia) .And he was saying that God wants us to be rich because in the old testament it spoke of how God blessed the children of isreal with abundance. He some how was trying to imply that God blessed the Isrealites(sp) by making them wealthy. Which was wierd on two fronts one he was an Australian jumping up and down and shouting praises like one of those gimpy American benny hin type evangilist ( he wasn’t claiming to have the power of healing though.) No offence to you Americans. It was just strange to see a Australian doing it.as we are normaly quiet reserved in the showing of our faith. I mean you can be great friends with people for years and not know their religion. ( i just found out the other day one of my best friends i have known for years is a baptist) Any way i’m rambling sorry. I think it’s ok to be wealthy and still be a christian. I just don’t think being rich is a blessing from God. It’s just being fortunate. having good health a loving family and good friends is a blessing. I think the message of the camel through the eye of the needle is that some people like the man in this story tend to put money before God thats when it becomes sinful. For this man valued his qwealth above Jesus. I think that if a wealthy man was generous and helped a lot of people wit his wealth and Wouldn’t break one of Gods commandments to stay wealthy or get wealtheir he would be ok. I guess what i’m trying to say is that it’s ok to become Rich just don’t turn your back on God and his teachings to do so.
Again sorry about the rambling its a bad habit i have it comes with A.D.D

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

What makes you think that there is an unlimited potential for every individual to own his or her own business?

What makes you think there isn’t?

cynic:

The free market is limited by consumer population/resources.

Which in turn is a function of the resourcefulness of the population. More entrepreneurs, more resources.

cynic:

To start a busines ussually requires existing capital aswell. (And of course you couldn’t get any staf because everyones tyring to start their own business?!!?)

Are you saying that we are on the gold standard? That there is no money in circulation but coins of precious metal?

That’s wrong. When you borrow money, the money you borrow was created for you (ask your banker how this works.) When you start the business and pay it back, the amount of capital in the world has increased – by the interest you paid, plus the value of your business.

cynic:

If there weren’t any employees there’d be no economy. But you’ve conveniently labeled anyone who isn’t self employed or in upper management a loser. It’s you who is being simplistic.

Can’t we be civil in this debate?

I’ve simply rejected the mercantilistic view of economics as a zero sum game. I also understand that society is not static. A person may be a newspaper boy at one time in his life and a business owner at another.

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

I’ve simply rejected the mercantilistic view of economics as a zero sum game. I also understand that society is not static. A person may be a newspaper boy at one time in his life and a business owner at another.

so all employed positions can act as intermediary steps towards self employment? Everyone not self employed should be young people fresh out of school looking for something better. Paper boy is an easy example, what about 30 year old truck driver, what he going to do just take night school and suddenly become head of marketing at a office supplies firm? Some sort of free market uptopia where the pie gets larger and larger, where everyone is measured by how hard they work, not intelligence, opporunity or the cold hard economics the requires most poele to be ‘losers’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

so all employed positions can act as intermediary steps towards self employment?

Certainly! Don’t you look forward to and work for a better future for yourself and your family?

You can also buy stock in existing companies – and everyone should have a savings and investment plan.

cynic:

Everyone not self employed should be young people fresh out of school looking for something better. Paper boy is an easy example, what about 30 year old truck driver, what he going to do just take night school and suddenly become head of marketing at a office supplies firm?

Shall I tell you the parable of the skydivers?

Two men jumped at 12,000 feet – one of them without a parachute. As they fell free of the plane, he looked at his fellow skydiver and said accusingly, “Tell me what I should do now!!”

The other skydiver said, “It’s a lot easier for me to tell you what you should not have done five seconds ago.”

The moral of this story is that you should do right early, because you can run out of time. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

cynic:

Some sort of free market uptopia where the pie gets larger and larger, where everyone is measured by how hard they work, not intelligence, opporunity or the cold hard economics the requires most poele to be ‘losers’.

In fact, most people are well set up to be winners – if they will only take action.

Now I notice you remark about the pie getting larger and larger, as if that could not happen. In fact, it has happened and continues to happen. Fifteen thousand years ago, the whole world could not have supported as many people as now live in California. But fortunately, Malthus was wrong.

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

The moral of this story is that you should do right early, because you can run out of time. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

.

You are denigrating people who are working hard, doing jobs that need to be done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

You are denigrating people who are working hard, doing jobs that need to be done.

You have made a direct, personal accusation. I think I am entitled either to see your proof, or to an apology.

 

[cynic]

apology? so I am ‘oppressing’ you by disagreeing. The argument given in your previouse posts is that people who spend their lives working in non self employed or non management positions have “not lived up to their potential” and by implication are lazy. What else but denigration?

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

apology? so I am ‘oppressing’ you by disagreeing. The argument given in your previouse posts is that people who spend their lives working in non self employed or non management positions have “not lived up to their potential” and by implication are lazy. What else but denigration?

I see you are determined to make this personal.

I decline to join you in exchanging accusations – and point out that you have abandoned debate.

 

[cynic]

I’m not sure what the debate is. If it’s “there is room at the top for everyone if they just worked at it” then I disagree. You cannot have more employers than employees. Unless you have a massive population increase from one generation to the next, the ‘bulk’ of these employees will not find work running their own business in the future - assuming they find capital, and have the requisite intelligence and education - because there will not be enough people out there to sell to or employ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

I’m not sure what the debate is. If it’s “there is room at the top for everyone if they just worked at it” then I disagree.

But you have no evidence – just your feelings.

cynic:

You cannot have more employers than employees.

That would be true only if people were locked in, unable to work their way up, or start their own businesses.

cynic:

Unless you have a massive population increase from one generation to the next, the ‘bulk’ of these employees will not find work running their own business in the future -

Why not? Many businesses are run by owner-workers.

cynic:

assuming they find capital, and have the requisite intelligence and education - because there will not be enough people out there to sell to or employ.

Quite the contrary – business breeds more business.

 

[John-the-Seeker]

Maybe you could help me with an answer to my question about money and our faith.
I would like to receive a comment on the following quote from the Bible:
**“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” **​

I have heard that the above phrase was uttered by Jesus as He looked at a rope made of camel hair that had been passed through eyelets made in metal poles that had been stuck in the ground to hold back the crowd that had gathered to hear Him speak. I have also heard of the Camel Gate. I have also heard that if all of the spaces between the molecules of a camel were able to be eliminated, it would be easy for a herd of camels to pass through the eye of a needle.
Which ever of these is true or if all are true, they highlight that somethings are very difficult to do for man, but God can make a way where there is no way.
There is nothing that exists that has not been created by God and all that He creates is good or very good.
Rich is a creation of God and therefore in itself is good. However the absence of Love in the use of anything is the evil. The backward word of live. Evil is not a creation of God it is the absence of the love of God in our choices. We cannot measure evil anymore than we can measure darkness. We can measure the absence of light and we can measure the absence of love.
Therefore wealth, which is a word used to quantify money, is one item quantified by the word rich, is a gift from God. “Your wealth and your health is mine, so am I not free to do with it as I choose?”
Humility is a gift from God quantified by the word rich.
Pride is a measure of the absence of humility quantified by the word rich.
Money, a unit of exchange used to facilitate the exchange of product amongst people, is a gift from God.
Whether you own your wealth or whether your wealth owns you is the sin. Job was given wealth in many things, had it taken from him and had it restored many times over. He used his wealth for others.
Jesus could have been referring to one of these or all or more than I have mentioned in this phrase. God is not limited except by Himself.
Therefore it is hard for a person who is filled with self, (rich because of a personal opinion formed by the presence of or the lack of the presence of some gift), to enter the kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God exists wherever people renounce sin. You do not have to die or leave this world to enter the Kingdom of God.
We need the guidence of God to avoid sin. God can turn all his gifts, which we have turned to sin, (vices), back to virtues. For example the sin of stubborness becomes the virtue of perseverence.
John-the Seeker

 

[jeromelives]

hurdlr23:

Personally, I’ve always associated Christ more with communist theory. In communism, one tries only to further the self interest of the community. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

To suggest that Christ would promote an economic theory that strips individuals of their individual rights, their free will and turns them into nothing more that property of the state is not only offensive, I’d argue that it’s blasphemous as well.

The Vatican has issued statements to that effect as well. You might want to read up on the Church’s position on “libertion Theology.”

hurdlr23:

In practice, human nature makes this impossible. However, I beleive that Jesus emphasized our ability to follow this. “Sell what you have and give to the poor.” Also, in regards to the widow who gave two copper pieces to the temple, “She has given more than anyone else.”

Interesting conudrum you’ve created for yourself; how does one comply with Christ’s command if they are prevent from owning things of their own in the first place in order to sell them and give to the poor in the second?

How does one give when one’s labor is seized by the government first and they have nothing to give?

hurdlr23:

Personally, as an economically left leaning catholic

I can show you statement after statement by Popes stretching back nearly a century all saying that Catholic teaching and Communist ideology are incompatible.

Unlike you, it’s not my personal opinion that there is no such thing as a left leaning Catholic, rather it is the opinion and position of the church that you can not be a sincere Catholic and hold the personal beliefs you do.

hurdlr23:

I believe that communism and socialism provide for equity that cannot be found in capitalism (if someone is born poor and disabled mentally and physically, they will probably stay poor)

Only if by equity you mean everyone being stripped of their human diginity, indivuduality and god given human rights and turned into possesions of the state. Communism and socialism are simply slavery with the government holding the whip. All the rationalization of the end justifying the means won’t change that.

One of the hard and fast rules of beign Catholic is that you are not permitted to use coersion or force to make others accept what you believe… and no matter how you twist it everyone who lives under a communist or socialist form of government does so under the constant threat of government sanctioned and implemented violence used to steal the product of their labor.

hurdlr23:

God Bless!
A left leaning economist

What you are is a misguided fool if you believe you can achieve heaven and be faithful to Christ’s command for REAL social justice by having the government stick a gun in every citizen’s face, take what they’ve worked for by force and redistribute it the way you see fit.

 

[jeromelives]

JButky:

While capitalism is not all bad and has some merits vis a vis Christianity, it also has it’s flaws when compared in that light. Your description illuminates some of the dangers inherent in a capitalistic system.

Joe B

I would argue that capitalism is flawless as an economic theory.

The dangers and problems some people have attributed to capitalism are really problems with the flawed people who engage in capitialist endeavors.

If everyone in society functioned as a capitalist AND a Catholic there would be no Enrons and the poor would have their needs met as well.

It’s only when you have capitalism without moral and ethical people that problems arise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I might point out that Joseph, a carpenter, had his own business and was by definition a capitalist. Peter and Andrew were fishermen and capitalists. Paul, the tent-maker and Luke the physician were also capitalists.

 

[jeromelives]

jeromelives:

To suggest that Christ would promote an economic theory that strips individuals of their individual rights, their free will and turns them into nothing more that property of the state is not only offensive, I’d argue that it’s blasphemous as well.

The Vatican has issued statements to that effect as well. You might want to read up on the Church’s position on “libertion Theology.”

Sorry for the typo(s) That should be “Liberation Theology.”

Rarely has any Pope ever written on economics or social justice and not included a warning about using evil means to achieve the ends - socialism and communism use evil means and their ends are never good to boot.

 

[Magicsilence]

vern humphrey:

But you have no evidence – just your feelings.

Your argument against cynic is unfortunately too simplistic. While both arguments are sustainable, only his exists in the real world. You are, by definition, appealing to a free market economy in an exponential market (ours is actually finite). His(her?) position is tenable and can be backed up by proof. Nice, though it is, to imagine position in which it was possible to have each man create his own business, it will never happen to the degree that you are imagining it to happen, and even then, you must realise it is never possible to have more employers than employees. In simple terms, a sole trader is both an employer and employee. You cannot accredit him to being one or the other. He is a potential employer for the future, and at the same time an employee of the entity which is described as his business. And once he starts to hire people, then the employer/employee ratio will only increase.

That would be true only if people were locked in, unable to work their way up, or start their own businesses.

Again, you are appealing to a market without boundaries, no using up of resources, etc… It cannot and will never exist. So, in essence, cynic is again right. However, the points you made themselves are not so distant as you might think. It takes a lot to start a business. I would put forward the argument that only a small fraction of people would have “what it takes” which follows through to many people being locked in their present job. Again, if you dont enough brain power, you will not be able to work your way up. It is a selective process, and is not determined by effort, but IQ and other factors. Unfortunately, effort is rarely taken into account, especially at higher levels, where it is generally equal among all employees at that level. There are even more factors that do exist in society that would prevent a scenario occurring where employers were more numerous thatn employees.

Why not? Many businesses are run by owner-workers.

You are indeed correct. In fact a large percentage of business’ ARE sole traders. However, it does not give them a large percentage of market share, or employees, etc… There are lots of them, but they are really really small. One large globalized company could easily match the number of sole traders.

Quite the contrary – business breeds more business.

Careful, what you meant to say was successful business breeds business, and it doesnt always go that way. Some time it has to stop and then plummet, and its this constant imbalance and shifting that causes the employer/employee ratio roughly constant.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Magicsilence:

Your argument against cynic is unfortunately too simplistic. While both arguments are sustainable, only his exists in the real world.

That’s wrong – California, for example, exists in the real world. And there are more people living in California than the whole world could support some 15,000 years ago.

Magicsilence:

You are, by definition, appealing to a free market economy in an exponential market (ours is actually finite).

If it is finite, you should be able to define the upper limit.

Magicsilence:

Nice, though it is, to imagine position in which it was possible to have each man create his own business, it will never happen to the degree that you are imagining it to happen, and even then, you must realise it is never possible to have more employers than employees.

Can you show that this is true without using static analysis?

Magicsilence:

In simple terms, a sole trader is both an employer and employee. You cannot accredit him to being one or the other. He is a potential employer for the future, and at the same time an employee of the entity which is described as his business. And once he starts to hire people, then the employer/employee ratio will only increase.

If that’s true., then someone who is an employee for part of his life is forever condemned to be an employee and is also barred from buying stock.

Magicsilence:

Again, you are appealing to a market without boundaries, no using up of resources, etc… It cannot and will never exist.

So how do you explain things like computer programs, books, and other products of pure thought?

Magicsilence:

So, in essence, cynic is again right.

You say that, but offer no proof.

To prove that position, you must do two things – first of all, define the absolute upper limit of the economy. Secondly, demonstrate that a person who takes employment is forever barred from starting his own business or buying stock in another business.

Magicsilence:

However, the points you made themselves are not so distant as you might think. It takes a lot to start a business. I would put forward the argument that only a small fraction of people would have “what it takes” which follows through to many people being locked in their present job.

What is “what it takes?” Go around to small businesses and talk to the owners. Are they smarter than you are? Are they healthier, bigger, faster, or possessed of some other inbred advantage?

Or are they simply people who are willing to make more sacrifices, take more risks, and work harder?

Magicsilence:

Again, if you dont enough brain power, you will not be able to work your way up. It is a selective process, and is not determined by effort, but IQ and other factors.

There are people who are badly handicapped, and a handicap by definition is an impedement to success. But if we speak of people who are not abnormally handicapped, they can all advance in life.

Magicsilence:

Unfortunately, effort is rarely taken into account, especially at higher levels, where it is generally equal among all employees at that level. There are even more factors that do exist in society that would prevent a scenario occurring where employers were more numerous thatn employees.

The biggest impedement is summed up in two words, “I can’t.” As my father used to say, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re probably right.”

Magicsilence:

You are indeed correct. In fact a large percentage of business’ ARE sole traders. However, it does not give them a large percentage of market share, or employees, etc…

Market share is independent of the existance of the business – my great-grandfather, for example, never learned to read and write. At first he made his living as a trapper (and was, by definition, an entrepreneur and a capitalist.) When he had enough money laid by, he bought a wagon and team and became a freighter. Finally, he got a farm.

He never had a huge – or even a significant – share of the market in furs, freighting, or farm produce.

Magicsilence:

There are lots of them, but they are really really small. One large globalized company could easily match the number of sole traders.

Not necessarily – small businesses in the United States are a significant factor in the overall economy.

Magicsilence:

Careful, what you meant to say was successful business breeds business, and it doesnt always go that way. Some time it has to stop and then plummet, and its this constant imbalance and shifting that causes the employer/employee ratio roughly constant.

There is indeed a business cycle – however, as economists point out, it isn’t necessary that everyone succeed, but only that they try.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

it isn’t necessary that everyone succeed, but only that they try.

You are so right, Vern. So much ‘trying’ is hindered by a morbid perfectionism. Where does that come from?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

You are so right, Vern. So much ‘trying’ is hindered by a morbid perfectionism. Where does that come from?

A common logical fallacy is to reject a position because it isn’t perfect – all the while ignoring that no other position is perfect, either.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif