S
- Status
C
Cadellin
Guest
I quite agree. “If society behaved in the Christian manner…” The trouble is that in many instances it doesn’t. This is why legislating a little charity is necessary. It won’t weaken Christianity. Jesus legislated charity 2000 years ago and Christianity none the weaker for it.
PS “All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.” That’s easy to say.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Jesus never legislated anything. The purpose of charity is to help the needy. You do this out of love for Jesus, the object of that love. What, or who, is the object of forced charity? Not the receiver, not the giver, but the forcer [and I don’t think the feeling in such a case is love, unless it’s the love of the forcer for himself].
S
sedonaman
Guest
“Any attempt at a rational discussion of the economic realities of government-controlled [______ fill in your favorite evil industry ________] is almost certain to run up against the trump card of the political Left: The Poor.
"The image that is often invoked is that the elderly poor, forced to choose between food and medical treatment. [In this case, it’s child slavery.] Who could be so heartless as to abandon them to the vagaries of the free market? *
"This has proved to be very effective political strategy for extending government power, not only over medical care but also over housing and other sectors of the economy.
"The phoniness of this argument becomes apparent the moment you suggest that money be set aside specifically for dealing with the special problems of the poor, rather than bringing whole sectors of the economy under the dominance of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges.” – Ever Wonder Why, by Dr. Thomas Sowell*
"The image that is often invoked is that the elderly poor, forced to choose between food and medical treatment. [In this case, it’s child slavery.] Who could be so heartless as to abandon them to the vagaries of the free market? *
"This has proved to be very effective political strategy for extending government power, not only over medical care but also over housing and other sectors of the economy.
"The phoniness of this argument becomes apparent the moment you suggest that money be set aside specifically for dealing with the special problems of the poor, rather than bringing whole sectors of the economy under the dominance of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges.” – Ever Wonder Why, by Dr. Thomas Sowell*
C
Cadellin
Guest
It was Capitalism, not Socialism, that caused the Great Depression in the first place.
However, I agree with you, but I think you, like a number of others, are confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism is just Capitalism with a safety net. It’s an extension of, rather than a replacement for, Capitalism. After all, it’s easier to have private enterprise creating employment than having the government do it, except for the Armed Forces, Police, politicians and the like. We can’t be too Capitalistic; we need some Socialism.
C
Cadellin
Guest
Um, I don’t know which Bible you read, but in my one Jesus said, “This is my comandment I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.” So, love is a commandment; that means it was legislated, i.e made a law. Charity isn’t an option, it’s a requirement.
T
tjm190
Guest
Jesus believed worldly authorities, such as governments, were a fact of life that we simply had to live with- but not something we should take too much interest in. Christ’s laws were made for individuals to follow, not for us to impose on society unjustly.
The early Christians did not form socialist societies, they formed the ‘ideal communist’ society that Marx wrote about. There was no government at all.
S
sedonaman
Guest
How many safety nets are enough? Social Security retirement benefits are a safety net, and it’s in trouble; Medicare is a safety net; and it’s in trouble; SSI is a safety net, and it’s in trouble because there is a big budget deficit overall; Medicaide is a safety net, and it’s in trouble ditto SSI; the earned income tax credit is a safety net, and it’s in trouble ditto SSI. There are food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, WIC, free school lunches, and a thousand and one other government “safety nets”. I’d be willing to bet that if we looked hard enough, we’d even find a program that provides federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish. These are all besides private charity. Every government-run social program out there is in trouble, and you socialists are crying for more.
Like Sowell said, government control is the real goal, not helping the poor. Beyond that, the ultimate goal, I’m convinced, is to punish “the rich”.
D
DOShea
Guest
Incorrect. Yes, there was capitalism, but that didn’t cause the depression. Fear played a great part as did lack of oversight which is exactly why we have this current depression and economic downturn. When the government forces lenders to lend money to those who have little chance of paying it back, that is NOT capitalism, that is tyranny imposed on the top of capitalism in a way that almost forces it to fail. Our government decided to put lenders at a greater risk that they would not on their own take. In return for this risk, they allowed them to create a bunch of worthless, paper-thin investment instruments that were at one end backed by the federal government. But it was like like stacking dominoes in a row with only the last domino backed by the fed, but everyone along the long domino chain believing - in concept - each domino would be protected by the one before it. No one with a molecule of economic training should ever have allowed that kind of house of cards to be built, but it WAS allowed because it gained immediate votes and that was the real goal. The problem is, once the house of cards fell, no one wanted to take ownership of the policies they allowed which gave rise to the house in the first place.
I don’t know where you’re getting these definitions from, but Socialism and Capitalism are worlds apart. Socialism is based on a concept where everyone (supposedly) contributes what they can and withdraws what they need. Sounds good on paper, but without incentive to do their best, humans default to doing the minimum possible and still get by. This lowers productivity and reduces the size of the overall pie. Then there is the question of what does any one person “need?” Do they need cars? Cell phones? Large screen HDTVs? Computers? Someone has to make those decisions, thus it always comes down to either a democracy (popular vote) or a dictatorship (I’ll tell you what you need).
Capitalism is based on the idea that the worker who is more productive will earn more. If I can build a better mousetrap than the next guy, I will profit more from it. Thus there is a large incentive for me to spend my time working on a better mousetrap. Not only that, but any money I make I can invest in whom I think is making the best moustrap and profit off their success, whereas in Socialism I would have to return that excess money to the state and let them spend it however they decide, rightly or wrongly. The problem with Capitalism is it is subject to greed, thus, like Socialism, we have to have someone decide how much profit is enough, and here we have two schools of thought. Some feel the government must fill this role, and other think the marketplace will rule itself. If you make lousy mousetraps but market them slickly, you might sell a lot… until word gets out your traps are junk and few will buy them. In the government model, they make a list of what your trap must do and everyone builds to that standard rather than using their own innovative ideas to create what works.
When the I-phone first came out it retailed for over $500. Now it’s $200. Was the government responsible for that, or was it the marketplace rapidly filling with other PDAs that retailed for about $200 that dropped the price?
First, the government does not “create” employment because it doesn’t create anything. It has to hire people to carry out its policies, be it a congressional office phone answerer or a person working in the Post Office. The government has no power to “create” job, because if they did why would we ever have any unemployment? The government could just “create” more jobs and be done with it. But they can’t, they must rely on private enterprise to do that. Thus the more they try and limit the gain of financial transactions, the more they interfere with that job creation.
Second, capitalism and socialism don’t mix. When it is attempted, you always end up with class warfare. Those on the receiving end of the “socialism” do not like the idea that those on the receiving end of the “capitalism” make more money, have more stuff, and have greater opportunities because they work harder and achieve more. They see that and then demand they be made equal to it, rather than trying to move out of being a socialism recipient and a capitalism gainer. That’s just the way people are. They expect equality in what they get but never expect equality in what they have to give to get it.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
He also instituted the Church, which has always spoken out against socialism and excessive government intervention in the lives of its people.
Charity is a MORAL obligation, not a civil one. We are also required to go to Mass, but the Church nowhere advocates that nations should mandate this.
You need to realize that Charity is not “giving money to the poor” – it’s LOVE. One gives to the poor out of love because one loves Christ and wants to obey Him.
Peace,
Dante
C
CPA2
Guest
What caused the Great Depression? I found three different answers. Which one is correct?
During the 1930’s government blamed business for the Depression. (Some things never change.) It was the fault of the capitalism! Keynes entered the picture and monetary policy has never been the same since. Additionally, “the Keynesian revolution…provided both an appealing justification and a prescription for extensive government intervention (Friedman).”
Milton Friedman says that the Federal Reserve failed to create bank liquidity. The Fed tightened credit when it should have eased credit. **“The depression was a failure of government **in an area in which the government had from the first been assigned responsibility – ‘To coin money, (and) regulate the Value thereof’ (Friedman).’
Douglas Noland, like Misses and Rothbard, believes that “Depressions are the unavoidable consequence of reckless boom time money and credit excess, rampart speculation and the resulting severe structural and economic distortions. At some point, bank reserves and ‘liquidity’ become virtually irrelevant to the greater issue of intractable economic imbalances and maladjustments, and the instability of debt structures. This was the case after the ‘Roaring 20’s,’ and it is once again the case today.”
During the 1930’s government blamed business for the Depression. (Some things never change.) It was the fault of the capitalism! Keynes entered the picture and monetary policy has never been the same since. Additionally, “the Keynesian revolution…provided both an appealing justification and a prescription for extensive government intervention (Friedman).”
Milton Friedman says that the Federal Reserve failed to create bank liquidity. The Fed tightened credit when it should have eased credit. **“The depression was a failure of government **in an area in which the government had from the first been assigned responsibility – ‘To coin money, (and) regulate the Value thereof’ (Friedman).’
Douglas Noland, like Misses and Rothbard, believes that “Depressions are the unavoidable consequence of reckless boom time money and credit excess, rampart speculation and the resulting severe structural and economic distortions. At some point, bank reserves and ‘liquidity’ become virtually irrelevant to the greater issue of intractable economic imbalances and maladjustments, and the instability of debt structures. This was the case after the ‘Roaring 20’s,’ and it is once again the case today.”
C
CPA2
Guest
Congress believes in salvation by law. If only there were a perfect law, there would be a perfect society.
I suspect that most accountants believe that it is better to have some voice in formulating accounting rules than to have no voice at all. Like it or not, they believe we are in a partnership with government. This attitude is common in the industries that I have observed. As you might suspect, I do not believe in a partnership with the SEC. I would like to see FASB be a truly independent body.
There is a prevalent attitude that life is so complicated that we need professionals, experts and government to make our decisions for us children. I turn that attitude upside down. Life is so complicated that only we can know what is good for us. This is decentralization. We practice decentralization in business management, but not in government.
I suspect that most accountants believe that it is better to have some voice in formulating accounting rules than to have no voice at all. Like it or not, they believe we are in a partnership with government. This attitude is common in the industries that I have observed. As you might suspect, I do not believe in a partnership with the SEC. I would like to see FASB be a truly independent body.
There is a prevalent attitude that life is so complicated that we need professionals, experts and government to make our decisions for us children. I turn that attitude upside down. Life is so complicated that only we can know what is good for us. This is decentralization. We practice decentralization in business management, but not in government.
N
Nimeniton
Guest
I thought the Vatican is the most Christian country in the world.According to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
Vatican 100%
Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Honduras, Grenada, Romania and East Timor are 99% Christian
whilst the USA is only 78%
S
sedonaman
Guest
Good post.Government has no money of its own; what it has, it gets in the form of taxes from the private sector. If only people would think. If it takes, say, $100,000 for the government to keep someone employed for a year [including overhead, supervision, employment taxes, and benefits], that’s $100,000 less in the private sector that could have been used to create a real job. So where is the net increase in jobs? All you have done as far as job creation is concerned is to shift employment from the private sector to the public. Besides the economic considerations, you have shifted power from private companies to the government bureaucrat who can make decisions based solely on political considerations, not economic ones. Which is better at allocating scarce resources, the bureaucrat who pays no penalty for being wrong, or the businessman who does?
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
The key is PROMOTE. It does not say FORCE.
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
very well said!
C
Cadellin
Guest
Yes, the Church has condemned excessive government intervention, but it has also condemned insufficient government intervention. The duty of governments is to govern.
There are times when moral obligations become civil ones. As the present Holy Father points out in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “The Church’s social teaching has always maintained that justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs. Locating resources, financing, production consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence.”
C
CPA2
Guest
Unemployment
"Official unemployment"excludes all those people who have gotten fed up with job hunting and have dropped out of the labor force. According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, if we add in citizens and other US
residents who have stopped searching for work and include
those who have settled for part-time work because they
couldn’t find full-time jobs, “official” unemployment would be a lot higher.
Taxes
Taxes do not stimulate the economy. They do just the opposite. Taxes reduce disposable income.
Credit
We have been following the fiscal policy of Keynes for a long time. He proposed stimulating the economy during a recession. One method is to cut interest rates. Cutting interest rates usually leads to an expansion of money and credit through a process known as fractional banking. Alan Greenspan already has reduced interest rates 11 times to no avail.
I like the Austrian School of Economics. Ludwig von Misses, Murray Rothbard and Freidrich Hayek all warned us about the bad effects of credit expansion. I think that we are just beginning to pay the price for 70 years of credit expansion.
"Official unemployment"excludes all those people who have gotten fed up with job hunting and have dropped out of the labor force. According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, if we add in citizens and other US
residents who have stopped searching for work and include
those who have settled for part-time work because they
couldn’t find full-time jobs, “official” unemployment would be a lot higher.
Taxes
Taxes do not stimulate the economy. They do just the opposite. Taxes reduce disposable income.
Credit
We have been following the fiscal policy of Keynes for a long time. He proposed stimulating the economy during a recession. One method is to cut interest rates. Cutting interest rates usually leads to an expansion of money and credit through a process known as fractional banking. Alan Greenspan already has reduced interest rates 11 times to no avail.
I like the Austrian School of Economics. Ludwig von Misses, Murray Rothbard and Freidrich Hayek all warned us about the bad effects of credit expansion. I think that we are just beginning to pay the price for 70 years of credit expansion.
C
CPA2
Guest
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said. Government should be an umpire, not a participant. There is a legitimate role for the government. However, participating in the economy in the form of minimum wage laws and social security is not a legitimate role of government.
Such activities cause a misallocation of resources. Remember that resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) are scarce. Government cannot suspend the laws of economics. Government can only cause shortages and surpluses through price floors and price ceilings.
I am always amused when politicians say that they are going to “save” Social Security. If you are 35 years old, you will receive a 2% return on Social Security. If you are a retiree, you are receiving a 20% return on Social Security. Social Security is just another Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal unless the government is running one!
Such activities cause a misallocation of resources. Remember that resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) are scarce. Government cannot suspend the laws of economics. Government can only cause shortages and surpluses through price floors and price ceilings.
I am always amused when politicians say that they are going to “save” Social Security. If you are 35 years old, you will receive a 2% return on Social Security. If you are a retiree, you are receiving a 20% return on Social Security. Social Security is just another Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal unless the government is running one!
C
CPA2
Guest
“The growth of the bureaucracy, reinforced by the changing role of the courts, has made a mockery of the ideal expressed by John Adams in his original (1779) draft of the Massachusetts constitution: ‘a government of laws instead of men’ (Friedman).’”
- Status