What is wrong with capitalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
triumphguy #131
The Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Unjust Steward uses every day commonplace events and turns them into stories about the salvation of SOULS not a recipe on a quick way to make a buck or avoid a lawsuit!
Click to expand...
Precisely, and they use and show approval for wealth creation.
The error of confusing the vices of people with the plain and evident support of Jesus for prudence, justice fortitude and temperance in commerce seems never-ending.

In Matthew 25:14-30, we find Jesus’ Parable of the Talents. 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.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].
#138: He called the poor blessed
Click to expand...
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said: **Blessed are the poor in spirit **for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Thus does He complement His praise of energy, alertness, and perseverance with the blessing on fidelity to truth and His Way.
 
OK Abu (I keep thinking of that monkey in Aladdin for some reason!:o) you have said that the parables are multi-layered: so tell us about some of the other layers in the Parable of the Talents. Some of the layers beyond, or beneath the economic: which means very little to Jesus throughout the New Testament!
 
Don’t forget the oil merchants whose shops the wise virgins visited to purchase oil for their lamps. At no time were the oil merchants demonized.
 
Jesus didn’t demonize the tax collectors either! Mr. Boston Tea Party in my sig 😛

Just teasing: however you bring up an important point.

He didn’t demonize the criminal on the cross next to him. He didn’t demonize the Roman Centurion, an officer in an occupying army. He refused to judge the woman taken in adultery. He didn’t condemn the woman who anointed his feet (and who was a “known sinner”). He didn’t even criticize Caesar, he said we ought to pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar! He didn’t condemn the prodigal son who wasted his Father’s inheritance.

Does this mean he supported armies of occupation, criminals, adultery, prostitution, and the wasting of one’s inheritance?

Who did he demonize? Hypocrites. Pharisees and scribes who followed the form but not the spirit of their religion. Those who would not forgive when they had been forgiven. Those who hid their talents and did not take risks. Those who turned back once they had said they would follow. The Rich Fool who stored up treasure in his barn and not in heaven. The unwise who were not prepared for the bridegroom, who can come at any hour. Those who refuse to come to banquet. Finally he spends a lot of time warning the rich - you cannot serve two masters; he warns the rich to listen to Abraham and the prophets (the Rich Man and Lazarus).

Who did he forgive: those who were humble and admitted their sin.
 
I haven’t read though this whole thread, but has anyone defined capitalism?
 
Cormacnl said:
Tell that to the millions of Americans struggling to get by each day.
Click to expand...
The majority of Americans who are struggling to get by cannot be blamesd on Capitalism but on the breakdown of the family. The majority of the poor are single parent familes.The majority of the uninsured are single parent families.
 
For definition of capitalism, you need to look at both the European and the American definitions, because they differ substantially.

In addition, you need to look up the origin of the word “capitalism” … possible creation by someone who opposed the whole notion of private property. However, the word has crept into our daily lexicon. So we use the word without thinking about what the word really means.

Good question.
 
Apologies for using myself as a reference … to help write a definition of capitalism.

By listing some of its attributes.
Monte_RCMS said:
One of the many benefits from capitalism is that it offers the average person an opportunity to invest their savings in “the corporation” by purchasing of shares of stock in one or many corporations.

It allows the “little guy” to invest in fractional ownership in large corporations.

There is a sort of hierarchy of vehicles for saving your money … in a tin can buried in your back yard, for example. But there are risks … in this case, papermoney may rot or get wet or you may forget where you put it. Or your dog may dig it up and run off with it.

Or in a bank account. But, now you are into a bureaucracy with paperwork and the interest rate may be very low. But there is an element of security.

Or in a CD. A higher interest rate, but you tie up the money for a longish period of time.

Or in a government bond. There are different types of government bonds … but you tie up your money for a really LONG period of time. [You can invest in a shorter term note, but then you need to start keeping detailed records of when to reinvest and get into sophisticated things like “laddering”.]

Or in real estate. But you really need to know the market well. And getting out may take a long time when you want to sell. And there are commissions and taxes.

Orrrr … in the stock market … which is … buying shares in one or more corporations … the very essence of capitalism … private sector individuals pooling their money for future returns. Not risk-free. But there are tons of books, courses, on-line courses, correspondence courses. And you can get in and get out in minutes. No waiting around for a real estate broker to spend months or years trying to find a buyer.

And, of course, selling a stock or a bond is a taxable event, unless you do it within a tax-deferred account, such as an IRA or a Roth IRA. The tax booklet on how to do an IRA is now more than 100 pages thick.

And if you want to reduce risk, you can buy mutual funds of varying types ranging from commission funds to no-load funds to ETF’s, which invest as a pool … so you can reduce your risks [and also reduce your rewards].

AND, through the miracle of modern competition, there are an increasingly large number of vehicles so that you don’t need to have mega-millions to get involved; you can start very small.

And some employers even offer vehicles such as “401(k)” plans [tax-deferred plans] so employees can invest part of their paycheck in mutual funds, of which there are thousands to choose from.

AND, there are publications available for purchase or at the library to learn more.

And all of it is part of capitalism.
Click to expand...
 
Jonatello said:
different people have different definitions of capitalism, but

any system which allows for the resources that everybody needs to be gobbled up and controlled by a small number of the strongest/greediest/most-ambitious people whose actions can’t be monitored and refereed by the community is a recipe for tyranny

pure capitalism naturally becomes crony capitalism which becomes oligarchy.

This is very simplistic, but it illustrates the basics:

God gives 10 people on a desert island 100 fruit trees.

Communism: we all get the same amount of fruit, no matter who cares for the trees and picks the fruit…so, uh, whose up for getting that fruit for us?

Capitalism: there’s more than enough fruit for everyone to easily pick from, but haha we the most virtuous 2 have beat you with our clever clever wits and hard hard work, and have built a moat around 99 of them. You can all fight over the last tree, and since we control your food source, we call the shots around here. Do our bidding and be nice to us and we’ll share some of the 98th tree’s fruit with our favorites out of the charity of our wonderful God-fearing hearts.

Better Option: we have voted 9 to 1 in favor of letting everyone take no more than 10 trees and they can use their creativity, gifts, and work ethic to make the best use of them as they see fit.
Click to expand...
That’s not really a good definition of capitalism.

In capitalism, or at least in the American version of capitalism, you don’t TAKE everything and fence it all off. What you do is breed your own trees and come up with better varieties and offer the fruits of those to the marketplace.

Perhaps the “Better Option” is the best definition of capitalism.

What you’re calling “capitalism” is more like fascism.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
There are also significant differences between the European “understanding” or definition of capitalism versus the American “understanding” or definition of capitalism.

In Europe the government is in “cahoots” with industry … heavy government requirements for permits, licenses, examinations, regulatory compliance, all kinds of taxes and fees. The idea is to minimize competition and to minimize new entrants.

In the United States, while the government has lately had an increasingly powerful control over industry and business at all levels, the “traditional” American understanding of capitalism is free-market competitive economics with freedom of entry for new participants and minimal permissions needed for new entrants into the marketplace. We see small businesses starting on a home-business basis and expanding, if market needs are met, into large enterprises.

In the United States, when additional capital is needed, it is common to sell shares of ownership on the open market to small individual investors. And it is common to manage ownership of those shares by use of mutual funds of various designs. You can look up the numbers, but there are somewhere around 10,000 companies with shares outstanding in the U.S.marketplace. And there are probably around 10,000 mutual funds that manage various combinations of share portfolios. Tens of millions of U.S. individuals own shares. So, in a sense, participation in American capitalism is a form of populism.
Click to expand...
This is the post I was looking for on the potential distinctions and differences with European “capitalism” versus American “capitalism”.
 
Good article on recovery from recessions for the past ten recessions compared with this one:

Not really a news story, but useful in a discussion on capitalism:

finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/12/24/job_loss_and_recovery_in_eleven_recessions_since_world_war_ii/page/full/

The graph is very interesting, showing the 11 recessions side by side.

And this one, how capitalism is ready, willing and able to move ahead, but the government has placed the following restrictions:

finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2011/12/24/obamaland_american_mules_must_eat_certified_weed-free_hay/page/2

Excerpt:

In Montana’s Finley Basin there are known tungsten deposits. An Australian company wanted to bring revenue and jobs to the state by developing the resource. While the property was successfully drilled and recognized by Union Carbide in the seventies, it is now about 200 yards inside a roadless study area. The Forest Service was willing to offer a conditional drilling permit. Among the conditions were these requirements:
Code: 
     The drill sites must be cleared using hand tools,
     The drilling equipment and fuel must be transported to the site by a team of pack mules,
     The mules must be fed certified weed-free hay, and
     Drill site and trail reclamation must be done using hand tools.
The company gave up.

How can America remain competitive in a global marketplace when we are required to use pick axes and mules? How does this help America’s heavy equipment manufacturers like Caterpillar?

No wonder we are in trouble.

We need these resources. They are salable both in the US and in a global market. The question is will we produce our assets—creating revenues, jobs, and new wealth? Or, will we allow countries, such as China, to have a monopoly and control the price?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
That’s not really a good definition of capitalism.

In capitalism, or at least in the American version of capitalism, you don’t TAKE everything and fence it all off. What you do is breed your own trees and come up with better varieties and offer the fruits of those to the marketplace.

Perhaps the “Better Option” is the best definition of capitalism.

…
Click to expand...
The best definition I’ve ever encountered is the use of wealth to create more wealth.
 
oh that so much energy and enthusiasm were waged on the winning of souls as is waged on the winning of wealth.😦

from the Gospel of St. Matthew; ch 16

“[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?”

A Very Blessed Christmas Season to All!

scripture quote from: drbo.org/index.htm
 
Dirt said:
oh that so much energy and enthusiasm were waged on the winning of souls as is waged on the winning of wealth.😦

from the Gospel of St. Matthew; ch 16

“[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?”

A Very Blessed Christmas Season to All!

scripture quote from: drbo.org/index.htm
Click to expand...
****The issue is not that “so” much effort is made at wealth as it is so much effort is made at taking it from those who have made it and calling it Christian Charity when it is nothing but stealing.

by145w.bay145.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=1562282187#n=622521782&fid=1&fav=1&mid=3d2c54de-2e73-11e1-8ff8-002264c19806&fv=1****👍👍
 
Dirt #76
If our leaders focused on God first and foremost, everything else would fall into place.
Of course too many leaders are Godless or confused, but only by using faith and reason can wealth be created, as well as helping the poor to create wealth and helping those unable to help themselves.
#154
oh that so much energy and enthusiasm were waged on the winning of souls as is waged on the winning of wealth.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with any assumed wrongs of free enterprise, but with people who need to be prudent, just and temperate rather than avaricious and uncaring.

Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #51, explained his approval of producing wealth:
“However, the investment of superfluous income in developing favourable opportunities for employment provided the labour employed produces results which are really useful, is to be considered according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor an act of real liberality particularly appropriate to the needs of our time.”

As recalled: the eternal meaning of the parable of the Talents 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.

Mt 19:16-21 refers to the rich young man becoming an Apostle “come follow Me”. Nowhere does Christ require him or mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

Christ’s teaching on wealth and property
In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.”

As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): “you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.” As we’ve seen in post # 130, Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times.”

A very blessed Christmas Season and New Year to all.
 
sedonaman said:
Which brings up another question: Is it wrong to better the human condition?
Click to expand...
**Yes, if you are a member of the DNC:thumbsup: It is the job of the government to take care of you! How are those poor souls that worked so hard and had the help of influence to get those government jobs suppose to increase in power if you do not let them decide how your human condition is to be.:eek::eek::eek:
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top