Can a Christian be a capitalist?
A recent survey claims that a plurality of Americans believe Christian values are at odds with capitalism. That left me wondering whether we first ought to ask whether Americans even know what Christianity and capitalism are. When one learns that one’s accountant espies a deep conflict between Newtonian physics and Jungian psychology, one is right to ask what he knows of velocity and synchronicity, and whether he ought not busy himself doing one’s taxes rather than spouting off to someone taking a survey.
The two ideas seem simple enough. Christians follow Jesus and capitalists make trades. Except that we all know professing Christians who—were you to lay it out for them—would balk at some elements of the Nicene Creed, and you can’t throw a stick down Wall Street (the reader may linger on that pleasurable thought) without hitting some well-heeled beneficiary of taxpayer welfare.
You can offer up your life to Christ without understanding Christian dogma, just as you can be a masterful entrepreneur without being able to articulate the concept of subjective gains from trade. The survey-taker might get a fruitful answer by asking how your prayer life is going, or whether you made money last quarter, but he ought not conclude that a tuna knows the first thing about lunar tides and currents.
It’s a poorly formulated question, and it might be better asked this way: “Can a Christian be a capitalist without becoming a hypocrite?” I believe the answer is yes, for four reasons.
1. Christianity is rooted in liberty.
God does not force anyone to love Him. We are free to choose life or death, salvation or damnation. Creation is a gift from God, and we are invited to walk in it by His grace and thereby make our way toward paradise or perdition.
Meanwhile, the only alternative to free markets is coercion. If a gang of smart guys dislikes what happens when people freely gather to exchange goods and services, their only option is to get some guns and forbid the exchanges they dislike. Every economic system other than capitalism depends, at its root, on smart people with guns telling the rest of us what to do.
2. Christianity was established in sympathy.
Michael Novak called sympathy “a high moral art,” and distinguished it from self-centered empathy, wherein we imagine someone’s experiences are our own. Christ didn’t engage in empathy; He engaged in sympathy. He became fully man, fully sympathetic with our plight, and thus fully engaged in our suffering and redemption.
Meanwhile, a good entrepreneur exercises sympathy. Unlike the paternalistic socialist, he does not limit himself to asking what is best for his fellow man, but asks what his fellow man truly wants. The socialist (and the bad businessman) tries to remake man against his will, while the successful entrepreneur gets to know what man truly is and wants, and therefore is much better equipped to meet him where he is.
3. Christianity was born in community.
We find, in the Nicene Creed and in the broad narrative of the Bible, community. The Trinity is community. God calls us to community with Him. He calls us into community with one another.
For all their posing as communitarians, advocates of alternatives to capitalism—in practice if not theory—inevitably foment isolation and oppression. In East Germany, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and the failed communes of Western utopians, we find a common theme: Noble aspirations give way to shirking and selfishness, which give way to policing and punishment, all of which destroy trust and social bonds.
While capitalism is most frequently depicted in movies by the worst behaviors of Wall Street cretins, in practice it is more fully evinced by Main Street, where trust, cooperation, and shared experience characterize economic relationships, all of them lending themselves to a richer community.
4. Christianity is the story of Creation.
Most discoveries occur where people have the liberty to experiment and the opportunity to personally benefit from their accomplishments. The two great oppressive systems of economic organization in the 20th century—fascism and socialism—both subverted science while eviscerating the connection between personal creation and personal economic gain. Not surprisingly, both excelled at destructive innovations (think Nazi V-1 rockets and Soviet techniques to brush out of photographs any followers who ran afoul of Lenin and Stalin). Meanwhile, their people languished in economic and spiritual deprivation.
The true capitalist (as opposed to some bozo who makes big, ill-advised bets and then trusts his political contacts to bail him out) is a creator. She brings together an idea with resources, and takes the risk upon herself of combining those resources in a way that creates new and exceptional value for others. In so doing she participates in the first great calling of man by God, which was to labor alongside Him in creation.
I wonder if the authors of the survey in question have a firm notion of the meanings of Christianity and capitalism. It’s all well and good to dislike a doctrine—I dislike a great many myself—but it seems best to familiarize oneself with what it is that one has taken the time to dislike. Perhaps that’s an outdated concept.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top143 Comments to “Can a Christian be a capitalist?”
I think the question should have been phrased: can a Christian not be a capitalist?
However, I would also challenge Mr. Woodlief’s first apologetic assertion that Christianity is rooted in liberty. Au contraire. It is the contrary. Liberty is rooted in Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Great thoughts. My reaction was almost identical:
“If this is what 46% of Christians are opposing — the capitalistic system itself — and that is what they are engaged in — the capitalistic system itself — they have some serious reconciling to do.”
Read my take here: http://www.commonsenseconcept.com/anti-capitalism-christians/
Report comment to moderator
Great Article, Tony!
And, not only is liberty rooted in Christianity (#1), but so is responsibility, even though many people misunderstand its key role in capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism is simply an approach to economic and social justice that brings more liberty and mutuality to the table. Socialism takes more of a top-down approach while free-market capitalism generally takes a bottom-up approach. Free-market capitalism respects private property and the right of workers to keep a fairer share of the fruit of their own labor. Capitalism is composed of millions of daity transactions wherein each party exchanged something they wanted less for something they wanted more–millions of win-win scenarios.
But no approach or system will be better than the people who make it work.
Report comment to moderator
How many of the modern folk even know WHAT either truly is???? (Or to put it another way, how many of the responders have any clue what the Bible says about either these areas of life, directly or implied??)
We are told that near the end, God is going to send a great delusion, and this article (as well as other indicators) just emphasizes that , IMHO, it is well under way.
Report comment to moderator
Christianity is indeed rooted in liberty and liberty is also rooted in Christianity. Both and.
___________
This is well said, “Most discoveries occur where people have the liberty to experiment and the opportunity to personally benefit from their accomplishments.”
Report comment to moderator
Freedom Nut…with all due respect, and my admission that I may have completely missed your point, is your comment somehow implying that you are one of a very small elite few that does have a clue?
Report comment to moderator
When Tony complains about smart guys with guns I get the idea he refers to what some Democrats would like to do with Article I Sec. 8 and the 16th Amendment.
That doesn’t qualify as coercion, however. Here’s why: Tony has ample prior notice of his legal obligations in receiving US currency. He is free to move somewhere without taxes or gun control where he would be at liberty to outshoot anyone who tries to take his money (Somalia, for example).
Tony is perpetually free to persuade his citizens to elect Evangelicals who will abolish entitlements and reduce government to the size where it could be drowned in the Potomac and so remain light and nimble enough to enter each bedroom in the land.
Moreover, Tony’s defense of folks who “freely gather to exchange goods and services” is completey phony — and I mean totally. Republicans are the people who want to slap them with a VAT and turn them into US tax collectors.
Regarding Tony’s campaign to rehabilitate the image of the tolerant, open hearted, trusting, friendly, and creative capitalist — good luck. There’s a good reason that’s not the picture we have in our popular imagination: it’s contradicted by art and experience. Right-wingers have been promulgating this nonsense since Reagan and the only people it has benefited are the rich.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism is good — if it is constrained by regulations. If it is completely free to operate purely on profit and loss, companies have every incentive to provide low pay, long hours, meager benefits and unsafe conditions.
Christians believe we live in a fallen world where sin is rampant, and yet when it comes to capitalism they’re suddenly willing to trust the goodness of human nature and the free market to protect those who labor. It does not work, ever.
If Tony is right that “the only alternative to free markets is coercion,” then people who care about more than profit have to be in favor of some degree of coercion.
It’s sad how modern evangelicalism has taken the words of Jesus, who was consistently disdainful of the pursuit of wealth, and somehow turn them into a theology that idolizes wealth and brooks no limits — none — on its pursuit.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to the smart-guy capitalists who now own the Supreme Court, the public is more certain to be cheated and ruled by arrogant corporations who will take $50 at a time without ever having to worry about class action.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, I think you really struck out with this one.
Christians from Saint Augustine to John Calvin to the entire Reformed tradition of Christianity would all disagree.
Even if God did leave us free to choose salvation or damnation, it in no way follows that therefore some other specific choice ought to be free. Does it follow that we should be be free to commit suicide (i.e., choose life or death) because God (supposedly) leaves us free to choose salvation or damnation? Of course not.
And even if God did leave us free to choose salvation or damnation, and even if that did mean that choice was always better than restriction, you favor smart people with guns telling the rest of us what to do. People with guns tell us not to buy drugs because smart people have determined it’s bad for us, not to visit prostitutes because smart people have determined it’s bad for us, not to marry someone of the same sex because smart people have determined it’s bad for us. In all of these areas you (conservatives broadly, so I assume you specifically) are in favor of authority restricting license.
So Christ was not a paternalistic figure who provided something we did not want or even know we needed. That would be socialism. Instead, like a successful entrepeneur, Christ found out what the people wanted and supplied it to them.
Do we read the same Bible, Tony?
Here is a passage about the community of the early Church:
I’d also submit for your consideration that for most of the history of Christianity, the very foundation of modern global capitalism — usury, the idea that money could by itself breed more money without the application of human labor — was considered unnatural and sinful. In the Inferno, for example, Dante put both the usurers and the sodomites in the eighth circle of Hell. Both were guilty of violence against God and Nature: the sodomite took something that should be fruitful (sex) and made it barren; the usurer took something that should be barren (money) and made it fruitful.
Some 1600 years of Christian thought would consider Wall Street a deviant, sinful, even infernal institution. I won’t say they’re right, but I do think it ridiculous to try to root Wall Street in Christian history.
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHELIBRARIAN wrote; “Capitalism is good — if it is constrained by regulations.”
I agree with CONAN here. The difference between decent Democrats and Republicans is on where to draw the line in a way that allows the economy to flourish, function and grow in healthy ways. We see dangers and excesses at different places along the spectrum.
Report comment to moderator
There seems to be a tendency to see conservative Christian’s statements of support for capitalism in general as support for every element of it. I think the great majority of Bible believing Christians would agree with Conan #9 “Capitalism is good — if it is constrained by regulations.” That is why I combined the ideas of liberty and responsibility in #3. And, I don’t think Tony in has in any way suggested that his four points should be unrestrained. It is precisely because of our sin nature that restraint is required. Christians welcome that restraint on themselves and others but not to the extent that it ruins respectful individual liberty.
Of course we all apply these balances differently.
Report comment to moderator
Conan: What words of Jesus were “disdainful of the pursuit of wealth”?
JJF: Which part of Tony’s piece are you speaking to when you say, “Some 1600 years of Christian thought would consider Wall Street a deviant, sinful, even infernal institution. I won’t say they’re right, but I do think it ridiculous to try to root Wall Street in Christian history”?
Report comment to moderator
Mac: Stop asking me questions when you know the answers perfectly well. I think you’re just gameplaying here.
Report comment to moderator
I can think of a number of passages disdainful of greed, theft and the like. None that indicate pursuit of wealth is a bad thing; in fact, some that condone it. Please provide some support for your claim.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I believe we disagree about the credibility of Calvin and the Reformers where it comes to free will. To put it very gently, I believe Calvin was utterly at odds with Christian tradition on a number of matters.
You also suppose wrongly about my alignment with current Republican policy preferences.
That aside, this essay is not a brief for anarcho-capitalism, but an attempt to show that the ethos and sympathies that undergird a free society are consonant with Christian thought — while the ethos and sympathies (and their attendant antipathies) undergirding command-and-control societies (which even the utopian usually acknowledges must at least precede his desired world, until such time as man is remade in his image) are divergent from Christian thought.
Report comment to moderator
If you think the gospel of Jesus supports the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself, then I think you have a warped view of it. There are a couple of parables in which he uses the growth of an investment as a metaphor for spiritual growth, and that’s about all that even vaguely supports wealth accumulation as a Christian value — and you can get that only by taking the parables literally and not as the metaphors they are.
Other than that, well…
(Matt. 6:19-21, 24)
(Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 18:24-25)
(Mark 8:34-36)
(Luke 6:24-25)
(Luke 12:20-21)
(Luke 14:33)
(Luke 12:33)
(Luke 12:15)
I’m not going to get into a prooftexting battle with you. There’s nothing in the gospel that supports the pursuit of wealth over and above compassion and fair treatment of the laborers. There’s nothing that supports the accumulation of wealth without using it for radical charity. (And I do mean, radical … Jesus doesn’t tell the rich young ruler to give a few dollars to the poor, he tells him to sell all he has and give the money to the poor.)
As I said, contemporary evangelicalism wraps a veil of piety around an ethos that is truly antithetical to Jesus’s teachings on wealth. Tony, disappointingly, is running right along with that. But it’s not surprising.
Report comment to moderator
#18 is a response to #16, not #17… just to be clear. Tony hadn’t posted #17 when I started writing it.
Report comment to moderator
If you think the gospel of Jesus supports the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself, then I think you have a warped view of it.
and
There’s nothing in the gospel that supports the pursuit of wealth over and above compassion and fair treatment of the laborers.
I should have known. You argue with cartoons in your mind. Next time you fuss about someone misrepresenting something you’ve argued, return to this thread and read that garbage.
Report comment to moderator
What about that is “garbage?”
First you demand I prove what I thought would be obvious, then when I do you dismiss it with an insult.
Nice.
Report comment to moderator
First off, none of those verses indicates “disdain” for the pursuit of wealth.
But what’s garbage is your suggestion that anyone here argues for the pursuit of wealth “as an end in itself,” or “over and above compassion and fair treatment” of anyone. It’s that implication that’s truly insulting.
Report comment to moderator
Tony read Luther’s Bondage of the will.
You did not choose me, but I chose you John 15:16.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12:2
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor 2:14
God is the creator and He created this world with natural laws. One of those natural laws defended in the Bible is the right to property. Yet since the fall man is by nature blind to God’s ways, dead in sin, and an enemy of God. This man must be checked by the sword and God’s Law.
The kingdoms of this world are all corrupted by the Prince of This world the Devil. It is a very dangerous thing to confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.
God’s economy is not you get what you earned (unless you reject Jesus) but those who believe are forgiven and blessing overflow.
Report comment to moderator
OK Mac. Two or three times now I’ve tried to have a dialogue with you, and each time, all you do is look for an opportunity to take offense over some imaginary slight, and then lecture me on how insulting or whatever I’m being.
You debate in bad faith.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent article!
Liberty is the key to successful economic systems and is the fundamental element in man’s pursuit of happiness. God, knowing man would fall, granted liberty anyway and let him Fall, this being preferred over the alternative. Liberals try to correct this error by force through central planning to curtail man’s behavior in order to try and recreate the Utopian Eden where everything is good again.
This endeavor is as irrational as trying to build a tower to heaven, but secular progressives keep on building just the same.
The liberal comments here are equally illogical assuming that power in the hands of a few corrupt politicians is better than in the hands of everyone else.
Liberals consistently fail to see that the checks and balances provided by the market are far more efficient, being nearly instantaneous and far fairer than the alternative command and control economy. What they focus on is areas where the market fail and set about trying to fix this by coercing people with force.
But where modern liberals make the gravest error is in their opposition to liberty. They view liberty as dangerous. Liberty hinders them from imposing their will on the people which inevitably must be done at the end of a gun.
Just as with the Tower of Babel, liberals can’t see the futility of their endeavor. The Tower not only doesn’t reach heaven it crashes to the ground. The end of all socialistic societies is poverty surrounded by high walls and shooting people in the back as they try to escape, but liberals keep building anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The dichotomy you draw in which total freedom or socialism are the only options is false. Like most who idolize an idealistic “freedom,” you don’t comprehend that the absence of limitations opens the door to abuses.
Some reasonable degree of regulation is needed to put boundaries in place for the sake of protecting consumers and laborers; otherwise, if businesses are able to anything they want to to maximize profits, consumers and laborers suffer.
That reasonable degree of regulation need not come anywhere close to the top-down command-and-control structure that you fear.
Report comment to moderator
Are you serious, Conan? Nobody has hinted that the pursuit of wealth is to trump human decency, yet you phrase the argument in those very terms. Who said it was “an end in itself”? Who said it should be pursued at the expense of compassion, or that the only thing that should constrain a company is its profit motive? Who “idolizes wealth and brooks no limits — none — on its pursuit”? None? Who *said* these things? Well…YOU did–in your ridiculous imputation of the Christian argument being posed here. That’s “bad faith.” What am I “imagining”?
Report comment to moderator
I’d make two comments.
Tony’s naive faith in the merits of capitalism are misplaced. I’d agree that Christianity does not oppose capitalism. But I think it goes too far to suggest that capitalism is consistent with Christianity. I believe that capitalism is the best alternative among the available options, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a good system. It’s just that the alternatives are worse.
It also strikes me that Tony ends up with something of a Christless gospel, as he tries to remake Christ in the image of Andrew Carnegie. In Tony’s entire discussion of Christianity, he refers to Christ only once. In that one instance, Christ is compared to an entrepreneur. Get real!?! Can I really be saved by Christ the entrepreneur? No thanks. I’ll keep placing my faith in the Christ who dies and rose again to redeem His elect.
And what’s up with the Calvin hating? I would not have expected to find that from someone who writes for a publication that generally advertises itself as a Reformed publication in the vein of Dutch neo-Calvinism. But then again, I don’t recall that Kuyper ever likened Christ to an entrepreneur.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: I was referring to capitalism as it is too often practiced in America today. I was not accusing any individual, especially here, of explicitly advocating those things, but as a practical consequence, it too often happens that workers get exploited, disrespected and harmed by the same practices that are good for a company’s bottom line. And as Tony has suggested that capitalism and Christianity are congruent paths, it is pertinent to take note of points where capitalism can and often does turn to be at odds with Christian ethical teachings.
And that’s the end of me going to great lengths to soothe your far-too-easily ruffled feathers. Stop being indignant every time I phrase something in a way that’s not to your liking, and stop looking for reasons to be offended. If I mean something personally, it’ll be obvious.
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting how most of us are prone to criticize each other with the assumption that others make a complete statement of their views in the few brief sentences they post. I wonder what difference it would make if we asked one another questions for clarification rather critical corrections.
Report comment to moderator
Conan: All I have are your words to go on. If you only with to make inane, vapid statements like “exploitation bad,” I’ll read your comments in that light. But you’ve directed exactly the same language to me and other posters here–I’m talking about your insinuations about not caring for the poor, etc. Even then, what does it matter if you think I’m taking it “personally.” You made statements that reasonable people might consider “critical,” then I asked you to support them. You needn’t take that as me having ruffled feathers.
Report comment to moderator
You made statements that reasonable people might consider “critical,” then I asked you to support them.
And I did, and then you huffily said I was being “insulting” and turned this conversation from a discussion of capitalism and Christianity into a personal attack on me. What is that, three times now you’ve done that? Four?
I’m tired of it.
Report comment to moderator
You were the one who brought out the “insulting” thing. I only replied that your form of argumentation–the implication that anyone here might be extolling profit and greed at the expense of humanity–was the real insult. In #9, you refer to Christians and evangelicals who are guilty of this. Oh, just not anyone here, though, I guess.
I asked you a couple times who was implying any of that stuff. You didn’t tell me. It’s not that hard to recognize. And you can mistake my requests that you substantiate these character swipes as a personal attack on you, but that doesn’t validate any of your criticisms.
Report comment to moderator
Saying that capitalism should be regulated is like saying that chess should be played on a backgammon board. It’s nonsense. If you regulate the economy, then it is no longer capitalism.
The fact is that the world has never seen true, laissez-faire captialism. We Americans have grown up being taught in school that we have a capitalist economic system, which is completely false. We have a semi-socialistic system that grows more socialistic all the time. I find it annoying to hear that misrepresentation over and over.
To those who say that Jesus disdained the accumulation of wealth, I say that you are missing the point. Capitalism does not say that one must grow wealthy–only that one may, if one has the talent and the motivation to do so. It leaves people free to earn, to horde, to squander, to save, or to do anything else with their possessions that they wish to do. It does not have any “ideology” to say which of those things people should or should not do. That is a matter for each person’s conscience.
Report comment to moderator
As a libertarian, I value freedom, just as God does. I do not say that a free-market economy is always the fairest or best, but it is the only one that guarantees the freedom of the individual. Of course, in order to guarantee the freedom of each person, there do need to be laws preventing aggression of one person against another. I am not talking about regulation but about laws that safeguard an individual’s natural rights.
People talk about the wealthy oppressing the poor, and how they need to be stopped from doing so. How is it different for the politically powerful (and usually wealthy) class to oppress everyone.
I would rather take my chances in a free economy in which I have a shot at outwitting and outplaying other people than with a government which hems me in and restricts me on all sides.
Report comment to moderator
Can Christians be capitalists?
When the scribes asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar or no?”, it was a question charged with political significance of an explosive nature. The Jews were seething under Roman rule; the temple rulers both hated Rome and loved their prestigious position. Jesus saw the trap: condemn the tax and be arrested for a rebel, or approve it and be torn in pieces by an enraged Jewish mob.
His reply was masterly (Luke 20:24,25), but it also makes an important comment. Political and economic systems are of this world. “My kingdom is not of this world“, Jesus stated to Pilate (John 18:36). Christians can be capitalists, just as they can hold political views, but always remembering we are ’strangers and pilgrims’ upon this earth. Our primary identity is not economic or political, but spiritual, salt and light, for the glory of God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: You were the one who brought out the “insulting” thing. I only replied that your form of argumentation–the implication that anyone here might be extolling profit and greed at the expense of humanity–was the real insult. In #9, you refer to Christians and evangelicals who are guilty of this. Oh, just not anyone here, though, I guess.
I’ve been making this argument for a while now in several different threads. Scott Walker’s union busting, for one, which as I predicted he quickly spread from public sector to private sector, widely supported by evangelicals on this board.
You earlier accused me falsely of saying that conservatives have harming workers as a primary motive. I told you that I do not believe that harming workers is a goal, but it is a consequence of some policies evangelicals support. The counter argument is that those policies are necessary to increase job creation. I say that creating jobs by making the jobs low paying and with few benefits may be a Hobson’s choice.
That’s a legitimate debate with points to be made on both sides. But then as soon as I use a word or phrase that you can find a way to be insulted by, we’re off and running on yet another attack on my posting style and word choice.
In this thread you asked me to substantiate my statement that Jesus, in the gospels, expresses only disdain for the pursuit of wealth. I did so, at some length, in #18. Instead of dealing with the substance of the scriptural support I offered, you chose to be insulted and offended because I also, in that same post, used the phrase “the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself.”
So the substance of my argument and support remains unaddressed, while instead you’re making me defend a choice of words.
What is that if not a diversion from the actual point of the post?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: To those who say that Jesus disdained the accumulation of wealth, I say that you are missing the point. Capitalism does not say that one must grow wealthy–only that one may, if one has the talent and the motivation to do so. It leaves people free to earn, to horde, to squander, to save, or to do anything else with their possessions that they wish to do. It does not have any “ideology” to say which of those things people should or should not do. That is a matter for each person’s conscience.
And how does that help thousands or millions of people who work for employers that feel it’s fine to pay them low, work them long and consider it a “problem” if not enough of them die in a year to provide the expected “dead peasant” revenue?
History consistently shows that extremes fail. Pure laissez-faire capitalism would be a disaster. Pure top-down socialism would also. The blend that we have, although messy and often contentious, strikes a pretty good balance between freedom and limitation.
Depending on conscience isn’t helpful in a business climate where so many of the people with the money and decision-making power seem to be lacking in that department. And as I said earlier, it’s especially strange that Christians, whose theology is based on a fundamental premise that our world is fallen and sin is rampant, should suddenly call on the goodness of human nature as sufficient to negate the need for regulations.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
It’s a mistake to confuse the regime of liberty within which free enterprise flourishes with a single-minded seeking after wealth. Most entrepreneurs I know, while viewing income as a sign that they are creating value for their customers, are not motivated every morning by greed. In fact, I’ve met plenty of redistributionists who are far more motivated by greed — and envy — than the businesspeople they decry.
Evan,
You only saw Christ mentioned once because it is not an explication of the Gospel. As for Calvin, I’m fortunate to write for a publication that requires its writers to be Christians rather than sectarians.
Report comment to moderator
“Christians believe we live in a fallen world where sin is rampant, and yet when it comes to capitalism they’re suddenly willing to trust the goodness of human nature and the free market to protect those who labor. It does not work, ever.”
Actually, Conan, we believe that competition, the mechanism instrinsic to free markets, is a far more effective brake on avarice than the coercive and corruptible power of government. We trust in that competition, rather than the goodness of human beings, to define the value of economic transactions. To those, who like Conan, are willing to trust the goodness of human nature and the powers of those humans in government to determine the value of an infinite amount of goods and services for all the interactors at the precise moments of all their transactions, we reply that your naive faith is misplaced. Dirigisme is a haven for the corrupt and greedy, who prefer wielding the levers of power rather than facing the competition of open markets.
The more free the market place, the more personal liberty and the greater the human flourishing. Government is a most effective partner when it supports personal property rights and enforces contracts, lubricating rather than constraining the engines of prosperity. That’s why Scroop Moth’s confused reference to Somalia is so absurd.
Keeping covenants and recognizing private ownership are fundamental to the Christian faith, written with God’s own finger on the tablets Moses brought dowm from Mount Sinai.
It should not escape notice that economy is derived from the Greek for household (ekoinonia)the same word that underlies the sharing of the church in the second chapter of Acts.
Report comment to moderator
PHOS, #36… Very well said!
Report comment to moderator
Conan: There’s no need to think Scott Walker’s union busting is a form of placing wealth over human well being. That’s you who’s always inserting that element; neither does it say anything about some “theological” component in anything. I didn’t “falsely accuse” you of anything. I provided quotes. Also, I didn’t reply to the bulk of your proof texts *because you said you weren’t interested in such a back and forth.* You keep insisting I’m looking for nits to pick with you. No, I’m asking you to back up those elements of your argument that impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree. That element’s in a lot of your posts, big guy. Go back and read them; I’ll wait. If you don’t want to be asked to defend those statements, don’t make ‘em.
Report comment to moderator
#38 Conan
“Depending on conscience isn’t helpful in a business climate where so many of the people with the money and decision-making power seem to be lacking in that department.”
So please explain who so many Democrats and liberals are so adamant about unions. On one hand you/they are outraged that Scott Walker and other governors are taking back union bargains. On the other hand you/they force people to pay dues to unions whether they want to or not. Then you/they want to get rid of the secret ballot box in NLRB sanctioned elections in favor of Card Check.
Conscience? Conscience? Unions ain’t got no stinken conscience!
And I’m not sure which is the hand and which is the glove between unions and the Democratic Party.
Report comment to moderator
. Most entrepreneurs I know, while viewing income as a sign that they are creating value for their customers
Most of the entrepreneurialists on this thread are non-responsive rejectionists who create no rhetorical value.
Report comment to moderator
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
It is not money that is evil, the ‘love’ of it, the ‘worship” of it.
Isaiah 55:2 Wherefore do ye spend money for [that which is] not bread? and your labour for [that which] satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye [that which is] good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
What we do with our money is as important as what we did to obtain it.
Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
– Matthew 25:1-13
Reread the passage and ask yourself into which category you find yourself.
Report comment to moderator
The best thing for poor people would be an economy in which prices are low, taxes are low, and jobs are plentiful–not one in which inflation and unemployment are rampant and taxes on something as essential as gasoline are so high. Even though the poor pay no income tax or property tax, the taxes trickle down to them through overhead costs on everything that they buy.
It is middle-class people who give the most, percentage wise, to charity and who volunteer the most. Letting them keep more of their earnings would free them to give even more.
So, if you care about the poor, you would want a free-market economy.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A. describes the best thing for rich people. The best thing for the poor is not low taxes, because the savings they may be able to achieve from the kind of paychecks that the poor get when prices are low are nowhere near enough to pay for their housing, medical care, and retirement while also providing their children with the education and other advantages that enable rich people to stay rich and get richer. KYLE A.’s scenario will actually set them back, because the poor will have to take care of their parents whose meager assets are going to be eaten up by Republican cuts in medicare and social security. For the poor, hard work and wages are not enough. They — their children — need big government investments in our common social future.
The quantity of money the middle class will save from Republican tax plans won’t fund the needs of the poor, because so much of the income produced in the economy goes to the extremely rich.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t miss the profound implication of phos #36, which speaks direct biblical truth.
All attempts in this discussion to somehow marry the gospel of Jesus Christ with worldly political and economic systems is futile. There will be no agreement here in these attempts because the gospel, and New Testament teachings, do not address the world’s political and economic systems. They address the invitation to enter the kingdom of God, and the obligations and expectations for the subjects of King of Kings within that perfect benevolent monarchy. If you are a follower of Jesus, “He rescued [you] from the domain of darkness, and transferred [you] to the kingdom of His beloved Son…” (Col 1:13).
The Bible does not teach liberty (except that from sin), contrary to what Tony wrote. It does teach slavery. Every person is a slave: “But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:17-18). Political and economic systems and preferences, and the de facto constraints thereof, in no way constrain one’s following of Jesus: “For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave” (1 Cor 7:22).
A follower of Jesus, who indeed is so by volition after being drawn by the gospel, has undergone a spiritual rebirth. Birth defines one’s citizenship; and every believer’s primary citizenship is the kingdom of God, which transcends every political and economic system. The kingdom of God can flourish in China equally (and perhaps even better) than it can in the U.S., and a Christian an serve his government in both and abide within either economic model.
The answer to Tony’s question in the title of this discussion is, then: Yes, Christians can be capitalists, but Christians can also be socialists. These are temporal preferences and intellectual judgments that have nothing to do with the kingdom of God. Let’s debate these, but let’s not make the mistake of calling either of them “Christian.”
A socialist can be a Christian, and a capitalist can be a Christian, but a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater, or anyone who engages in disputes, dissentions and factions cannot. Written to Christians: “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21). Does anyone see one political or economic system or another as intrinsic to any of these?
I prefer capitalism generally, and the rationality of the “invisible hand” that optimizes the aggregate benefit of every individual economic transaction (and vote) enacted selfishly or otherwise. I prefer democracy, which has the utilitarian effect of optimizing the aggregate satisfaction of the greatest number of people. Those are my culture, and my education. However, if, under democracy or any other system, the majority seeks to enact mercy and generosity by coercive taxation and governmental giving, I may prefer other solutions but there is biblical compatibility with the underlying motive, and no biblical statement opposes the means.
What is biblical is to do justice and to love mercy, within any political economic system. Mercy can be administered with justice by a socialist government, theoretically, and capitalist systems can be greatly corrupted by injustice and merciless oppression. Let’s separate biblical faith from politics and economics, and keep the kingdom of heaven/God pure.
The real question to be asked is, “am I in the kingdom of heaven, or is my highest citizenship, and highest interest, merely one of the worlds political or economic systems?”
Report comment to moderator
There’s lots of free market activity and private wealth in social democracies. Check out the indexes of “economic freedom.”
Social democrats are very pro-business. Business is the goose that lays the golden eggs, and collecting the eggs doesn’t stop the goose from laying them. Speaking personally, without the wealth produced by capitalism, I’d be dead, in jail, on SSI, illiterate, selling plasma, waxing floors after midnight at half-dead shopping malls, and a crackhead.
Social democrats advocate everything Tony and KYLE are talking about plus progressive taxation (with representation) of personal income. Social demorats will even agree to abolishing most of the corporate income tax (something Republicans have never done, btw).
The rich, who get most of the income, don’t give enough. Some are proud to give none. I knew a rich man who tweaked people by complaining that the money his wife gave to the ballet (in exchange for parties, of course) was more than enough philanthropy.
Report comment to moderator
“The rich, who get most of the income, don’t give enough.”
Yeah, Al Gore needs to give more.
Report comment to moderator
Tony: Most entrepreneurs I know, while viewing income as a sign that they are creating value for their customers, are not motivated every morning by greed.
If that were so, there would not be any really wealthy people. They have two choices of what to do when they earn more than they need to live reasonably well. The overwhelming majority make the “non-Christian” choice. The only thing most entrepreneurs care about is accumulating enough wealth that they can become pure capitalists living entirely off of the capital they have accumulated. And workers, who have the irritating habit of wanting to be paid, are nothing more than impediments to that goal. As are taxes and protection of the environment.
The thing that drives any entrepreneur is nothing more than the prospect of that great buyout or public offering in the sky.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, what a great discussion! I think we are all in much more agreement than we care to admit.
Phos, Evan and Phillogic2 are correct to point out Christ’s separation of church and state but I don’t see where Tony was equating Christianity and capitalism. He was merely answering the question whether capitalism is contrary to Christianity. Christians can certainly talk about economics without confusing it with the gospel or the kingdom of heaven.
Conan is correct to point out that there is a middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and a command and control economy, except no one here is arguing for the extremes. If we don’t generalize then how can we name what we are talking about?
The great divide between the conservatives and liberals here is how we define equity. Liberalism is outcome-based, i.e. desiring an equitable outcome. Conservatism is principle-based, i.e. liberty for all.
Conservatives say that liberty is the fairest system because everyone plays by the same rules. Liberals say liberty produces an unfair system where some people do better than others. Instead they propose systems which provide desired outcomes.
This is the crux of the entire matter. Liberals are willing to give up some liberty in order to address societies ills, like poverty and so on. They would take from those with ability and gives to those in need. Modern liberalism is therefore fundamentally materialistic. It is all about stuff, who has it and who deserves it. Conservatives don’t oppose helping the poor, they just feel it should be voluntary, as Christ did.
The problem is that when liberals are in power, they never know when to quit. These omnipotent moral busybodies will continue to take away liberty until they create a police state where everyone is poor and then have to be shot in the back trying to escape.
Report comment to moderator
Let me summarize our differences this way (note that I am speaking in generalities) …
Conservatives (i.e. classical liberals) say that liberty is the fairest system because everyone plays by the same rules. Modern liberals say liberty produces an unfair outcome where some people do better than others.
And so modern liberals try to rig the system through various means to produce desired outcomes. The various mechanisms used to rig the system all have one thing in common: liberty is always given up in order to redistribute benefits.
It is very rare that any legislative action ever gives the people more liberty. We the People will always have less liberty in the future than we had in the past. As Marx said, “History is a long slow march to the left”.
In the end, both conservatives and liberals always allow the government to enslave them. The difference is that liberals want it to occur and as rapidly as possible.
Report comment to moderator
An Alternative to Capitalism (which we need here in the USA)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: “There is no alternative”. She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: “Home of the Brave?” which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
Perhaps in time the so-called dark ages will be thought of as including our own.
–Georg C. Lichtenberg
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Liberals are willing to give up some liberty in order to address societies ills, like poverty and so on. They would take from those with ability and gives to those in need. Modern liberalism is therefore fundamentally materialistic. It is all about stuff, who has it and who deserves it. Conservatives don’t oppose helping the poor, they just feel it should be voluntary.
Liberals are willing to give up some “liberties” (dollars, really which are NOT the same as liberties) belonging to the tiny fraction of the population which can afford it, because there are huge swathes of the population who live in poverty.
Conservatives are entirely willing to deny civil liberties, like collective bargaining, defending oneself when accused of crimes against property, or defending yourself against an unjust firing or being forced to work endless hours for wages insufficient to support oneself, much less a family. Conservatives are very content with inequality and desperately fight attempts simply to provide a quality education for the lower and middle classes. They also are content to pollute everybody else’s home or town, while secreting themselves elsewhere.
Conservatives all secretly or overtly share Grover Norquist’s goal of shrinking the government, which is the ONLY check on rampant greed and exploitation of the people and the earth, to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. It is fine with them if the poor starve and the ill are denied access to life saving medicine, or the elderly just wither away quickly.
As for this, They would take from those with ability… I shouldn’t have to point out that wealth only vaguely corresponds with “ability”; most entrepreneurs will admit that luck and timing have a lot to do with it, and that those who succeed sometimes reap rewards massively in excess of any “abilities” they may have. And then there are those whose only “ability” was to be born into wealth and privilege.
XION, your constant conflation of money with freedom or rights, or with “ability” says far more about what you worship, an entity which has virtually nothing in common with the historical words and depictions of the man called Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
XION #52 & 53, well said. I would merely restate that one can follow Jesus in complete conformity to Scriptures and fall anywhere within a wide range of opinion in weighing equal rules (economic conservative) against equal outcomes (economic liberal). Within the body of Christ we should appreciate one another and not divide over such issues, though my weighing of these principles is similar to yours.
Report comment to moderator
If the government is the only check on greed in the business world then why did the US government hand over the control of the money supply to private banks? Why can private banks fabricate money while the rest of us can’t? Why is it legal when a banker loans bank credit yet I can’t do the same? Then there is the question, why can the bank charge interest on money that they invented out of thin air? At least counterfeiters don’t charge interest on the money they forge.
The reason that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because the US gov’t handed control of the money supply to banks back under President Wilson. Many bankers fought hard for him to get into office, and in turn he returned the favor by passing the Federal Reserve act, introducing fractional banking to the United States, one of the major reasons why the US rebelled from Britain. In any economy where fractional banking exists is by definition not free, and most definitely not capitalistic. The US pushes for capitalism abroad yet it is far from it. In the long run, fractional banking reallocates all resources (money) to the financial sector, the people who control the money supply. The interest charged on the nothing (fiat) they loan out literally drains the economy. Ironically enough, the one power the founding fathers meant for the feds to have, control of the money supply, was the one they gave away freely to the banking and financing classes.
When people claim that capitalism is failing because of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in America, they are believing a falsehood. This system we have is not capitalism, it is much closer to a version of corporatism where the real power over the trifecta of big gov’t, big business and big unions lies in the hands of the banks. When some people can make money (in this case lots of it) off the backs of others (those they finance through loans, bank credit, etc) the “freeloaders” get richer while those who work get poorer.
For a nice summary of what I am talking about, watch Trading on Thin Air, though it focuses mainly on our current economy’s impact on the environment. There was also a link Frank put up, Money as Debt I think, that also had a good explanation of the current system we have today.
Arcadia, the US gov’t is one of the most powerful tools that has been used in exploitation, just read our history. It should be a check on the infringement of rights as well as upholding contracts, but it has not been so for a long time, and even then, the Reconstruction Era did not last long. Capitalism in this country died the day the US gov’t chose sides in the labor v business conflict, where it infringed on the rights of the workers to peaceful assembly and speech in the public square. The introduction of the fractional banking system, some parts of the Wagner act and trustbusting acts that were meant to “fix” problems the gov’t started, and the removal of the gold standard were the nails in capitalism’s coffin.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism has much to do with Jesus’s words and the words of those who followed Him. In James, the brother of Jesus, said that we are not to show partiality to the rich nor to the poor. The only system that does not show partiality to anyone is the free market, and that system unfortunately is not the system we have now, otherwise we would not have such an issue with the boom and bust cycle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Love that vid. The reason the poor get poorer is because they loose everything when malinvestment bubbles bust, while the banks get rich off the interest of the bank credit supplied. And if stuff does go downhill for them, the US gov’t is federally required to bail them out. Its like feudalism all over again except instead of land and grain, its the dollar the “banking nobles” have guaranteed no matter the “harvest.”
This is no free market, its an enslaved market.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Arcadia. Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable response, even though everything you say is false. Does it matter?
“…there are huge swathes of the population who live in poverty…”
Please define poverty. I traveled all around the US for 3 years living with the homeless, yet never met anyone who lacked food and shelter. The poorest of the poor in America can afford food, shelter, Internet, cell phones, cable HD TV and XBox. How do you define poverty?
“Conservatives are entirely willing to deny civil liberties, like collective bargaining, defending oneself when accused of crimes against property, or defending yourself against an unjust firing or being forced to work endless hours for wages insufficient to support oneself, much less a family.”
Can you document even a single case of such a thing? Collective bargaining has nothing to do with civil rights of individuals. It means the collective has a right to bargain on your behalf, which strips the worker of the right to work apart from the collective.
“Conservatives all secretly or overtly share Grover Norquist’s goal of shrinking the government, which is the ONLY check on rampant greed and exploitation of the people and the earth, to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.”
This is completely false. Does it matter? How are greedy politicians a check on anything?
” It is fine with them if the poor starve and the ill are denied access to life saving medicine, or the elderly just wither away quickly.”
Please name a single person who wants the poor to starve or the ill to be denied access to medicine. Can you document even a single case? Your entire world view is false. Does it matter?
“XION, your constant conflation of money with freedom or rights, or with “ability” says far more about what you worship, an entity which has virtually nothing in common with the historical words and depictions of the man called Jesus”
I do not conflate money with rights, but you do. Modern liberalism reinterprets everything in relation to money since it is fundamentally materialistic. Everything is filtered by the “lens of stuff”.
Please explain how I misinterpret the words of Jesus. My guess is that you view the words of Jesus (whom you hate) as the ultimate materialist, i.e. a socialist who was all about redistribution of wealth, as though that solves anything.
Report comment to moderator
#56 Phillogic2 “… well said. I would merely restate that one can follow Jesus in complete conformity to Scriptures and fall anywhere within a wide range of opinion in weighing equal rules (economic conservative) against equal outcomes (economic liberal). Within the body of Christ we should appreciate one another and not divide over such issues, though my weighing of these principles is similar to yours.”
Yes, of course. I agree completely. Christianity transcends culture and economic systems. Christianity is neither capitalistic nor socialistic. It is about a kingdom which is not of this world.
Report comment to moderator
John Steinsvold, the Pilgrims tried that back in 1620, and half of them starved to death. The system you refer to would be grossly inefficient because it includes central planning of resource management. Russia tried that, and they ended up with massive surpluses and shortages on a regular basis. The price system is an excellent medium to move materials from where they are made to where they are needed. And actually right now, as a reply to the article you cited, 72% of the kibbutz societies follow the “renewing kibbutz” model, otherwise described as capitalistic kibbutz.
Report comment to moderator
In my opinion it is an unresolved dilemma. Apparently, as Os Guiness observes in his book “Call”, Marx’s critique of the capitalism system followed Puritan’s one. It is also a question raised by Francis Schaeffer. In “How Should We Then Live” he explains that the revolt of the youth in 60s was caused by their desperation and disagreement with life in personal peace and affluence. After the fall of the Iron Curtain many believers were thinking of the third way between the socialism and the capitalism. Socialism by the definition of its fathers excludes God: it is a paradise on Earth without Him. Capitalism should be based on the Bible that everyone could profit. However its atheistic form harms economically families to the same degree as socialism. After all pure capitalism, also described by Ayn Rand, is based on the egoism. In assumption satisfied people should share it with less fortunate. However in practice only Christians with open heart and the social conscience are showing help poor people. Being a witness of the dramatic fall of the economy in Eastern Europe I could witness help given by concerned, not very affluent Christians from the West (not billionaires or millionaires). I think neither capitalism with its dictate of the money nor socialism with atheistic, totalitarian state can be accepted by the Church. Christians should constantly think how to modify them.
Report comment to moderator
“The only thing most entrepreneurs care about is accumulating enough wealth that they can become pure capitalists living entirely off of the capital they have accumulated.”
So foolish you are, Arcadia.
If a capitalist achieves sustained income, that means he can repeatedly give and give or buy and buy.
Why would you force him to give once, when he could give multiple times over?
Distribution to the poor isn’t simply from taking his money and handing it over to others. In the things he buys, even large expensive things, it creates a market, which creates jobs, which broadens the opportunity for more work.
Take Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A. The man closes his doors on Sundays so his work force can be with family and in church. Yet his business still grows. Through his profits he has offered scholarships and started homes for children.
Now if you stripped him of his position and wealth, simply for being wealthy, what would you accomplish? His business would suffer, he would not be able to expand more stores and more jobs, he would not be able to offer scholarships and homes. In essence you’d create just another average guy in the least, and possibly another poor man.
As much as it is noble to help the poor. Simply handing money over and stripping the wealthy of it doesn’t solve the poor problem. If it did, we would long ago have fixed it.
Report comment to moderator
“I believe we disagree about the credibility of Calvin and the Reformers where it comes to free will. To put it very gently, I believe Calvin was utterly at odds with Christian tradition on a number of matters.”
Tony,
Perhaps you and JJF misunderstand Calvin, but Calvin didn’t deny the responsibility of man. Man’s responsibility and God’s predestination are held in tension in God’s sovereignty.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
In reply to your #18 up above. I find it odd you left out Matthew 20:1-16
So let me quote it for you. I’ll start in verse 9 as it gets to the point.
9And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
Why should one ever strip the wealthy of their ability to give or their generosity? To do so is out of envy and greed, not justice.
It solves nothing to do so. And if, as the typical liberal side may present that we can not sentence murderers to death, why would we have the arrogance to think that we can then decide who is greedy and deserves to be stripped of their money simply for having prospered, esp legally!!
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that if we only focus on the NT we are missing the total nature and character of God and His will for an economic and civil government system.
God instituted capitalism through many examples of the OT. The primary one being how the land of Caanon was divided between the families for private ownership, production and control.
God instituted civil government with swords and judges to assure the private sector adherred to the laws of God….not to Marx, Progressives, liberals, etc. But to God’s laws protecting private enterprise and property. Romans 13:4 in relation to Romans 12:17 to 13:14 explains this the best.
The liberals, et al, profess the Marxist based, ungodly wealth redistribution (aka legal plunder)overrreaching the role and responsibility of civil government and in violation of the 10 commandments. Fredrick Bastiat said it best in The Law when critiquing the socialism of France:
Bastiat says, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” With such an accurate description of legalized plunder, we cannot deny the conclusion that most government activities, including ours, are legalized plunder,
or for the sake of modernity, legalized theft.”
Whoever thinks what America has now is fine is living a fools dream. We are in the process of an economic collapse due to socialism. If you don’t think so please explain how the ponzi schemes of social security and medicare will continue along with the monstrous welfare programs and socialist education?
God also did not discourage wealth, only the love of money and material possessions. Again, if we explore the OT we find David, Abraham, and Job, as examples of wealthy people that God favored due to their faith.
1 John 2:15-17 I think addresses very adequately what some may be confusing the concept of wealth with lusts of the world.
Report comment to moderator
Amen #56 Phillogic2.
Scott L.
Report comment to moderator
Ken: Actually, Conan, we believe that competition, the mechanism instrinsic to free markets, is a far more effective brake on avarice than the coercive and corruptible power of government.
How does that work?
Let’s imagine a world where there are no rules obligating employers to pay a minimum wage or provide other employee benefits.
Grocer A pays employees $1.50 an hour and provides no benefits. No paid time off, no insurance, nothing. Grocer B plays employees $5 an hour, with two weeks paid vacation, one week paid sick time, and pays 2/3 the cost of health insurance premiums.
What free market force is going to persuade Grocer A to improve the terms of employment for his employees?
Because his labor costs are considerably lower, he can set his prices considerably lower. You might say the free market force is that nobody will want to work for him when Grocer B provides such a better set of terms. The problems with that are (1) Grocer B can’t employ everyone who wants a job, so Grocer A will still have workers, and (B) since Grocer A can set prices so low, Grocer B is almost certainly going to have lessen his wages and benefits for employees, or else go out of business.
That’s how the free market would work in such a situation as far as I can see. What am I missing?
To those, who like Conan, are willing to trust the goodness of human nature and the powers of those humans in government to determine the value of an infinite amount of goods and services for all the interactors at the precise moments of all their transactions, we reply that your naive faith is misplaced.
But I’ve said nothing of the kind, so it’s a strawman.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s how the free market would work in such a situation as far as I can see. What am I missing?”
Pretty much everything.
as to your point 1. Grocer B nor Grocer A can employee everyone, even as a sum. Both will have workers though, so long as they remain in business. So some knock on inability to hire the entire populace is poor argument.
As to your point B. (What happened to 2?) Without offering a good product that consumers demand, they will go out of business either way. No one disagrees with that.
Grocer A will eventually lose customers if his less expensive labor can’t make up the difference. Grocer B goes out of business if his higher quality products can’t generate more demand.
To thrive in capitalism, you must always provide a product that there is a demand for, or be able to create a demand for.
Further your simply stopping short. Say Grocer A is actually making a huge profit, but refuses to raise worker pay directly or with benefits. Say he’s able to do that and stay in business miraculously.
He’s still gonna spend all that money in his community. It still opens up new areas, new job opps, other charities, etc etc. People still benefit, even if not directly.
Money in the end is conserved. The equation balances itself as consumer demand ebbs and flows.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Pretty much everything.
as to your point 1. Grocer B nor Grocer A can employee everyone, even as a sum. Both will have workers though, so long as they remain in business. So some knock on inability to hire the entire populace is poor argument.
I think you missed the point. The workers that Grocer A is paying so little can’t pressure him to pay more by threatening to go work for Grocer B instead. When the labor supply is greater than or equal to the demand, the buyers of labor — employers — have no pressure from free-market factors to improve their treatment.
Without offering a good product that consumers demand, they will go out of business either way. No one disagrees with that.
Grocer A will eventually lose customers if his less expensive labor can’t make up the difference. Grocer B goes out of business if his higher quality products can’t generate more demand.
We’re talking about grocery stores selling the same products. The sole difference is what they’re paying the clerks and stockroom workers. Grocer A is unlikely to lose customers because his less-expensive labor allows him to set lower prices. Consumers prefer lower prices and relatively few of them will choose to pay more with Grocer B purely on principle.
Further your simply stopping short. Say Grocer A is actually making a huge profit, but refuses to raise worker pay directly or with benefits. Say he’s able to do that and stay in business miraculously.
There would be nothing miraculous about it. The free market favors the retailer with the lower costs and lower retail prices. Grocer A will be rewarded, in a pure free market, for paying lower wages to his employees.
He’s still gonna spend all that money in his community. It still opens up new areas, new job opps, other charities, etc etc. People still benefit, even if not directly.
If both grocers are constrained by law to pay at least a minimum wage and offer at least a certain range of benefits, this is still true. And meanwhile, even an employer who pays the very minimum the law allows will be prevented by that law from pushing the wages below a set minimum point.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Why should one ever strip the wealthy of their ability to give or their generosity? To do so is out of envy and greed, not justice.
It solves nothing to do so. And if, as the typical liberal side may present that we can not sentence murderers to death, why would we have the arrogance to think that we can then decide who is greedy and deserves to be stripped of their money simply for having prospered, esp legally!!
Question-beg much?
This is all based on the premise that setting higher tax rates for the wealthy is to declare then “greedy,” and “stripp[ing] them of their money simply for having prospered.”
I reject the insinuation that it’s punitive. In fact I find it a particularly vacuous argument.
I pay a higher tax rate than people who earn less than I do. Am I being “stripped of [my[ money simply for having prospered” to a greater degree than someone with half my income? I don’t see it that way.
Taxes are the price we pay for living in a free society. It’s how we pay for those things that serve the society. You might as well argue that the power company is punishing you for using electricity by sending you a bill.
Report comment to moderator
Conan and Thorn, you are both missing something. Since for both grocers there customers are probably making wages similar to their employees, whether if grocer A or grocer B win in this scenario, the buying power of the employees would be the same. Whether they make 2 dollars a day or 96 a day, since the prices are relative to their wages, the buying power of the employees stays the same. As long as the gov’t does its job in ensuring no one restricts competition in the market, the employees will end up in the same boat in terms of raw buying power. This explains why here, you need to make 1200 a month to live in the US (in Pittsburgh, which is the cheapest city to live in), 150 a month in Colombia, and 60 a month in the most of the world. All those dollar amounts, though drastically different, get the same quality of life. I’d argue that you could go farther in most places with 60 a month in most places in the developing world than 1200 a month in Pittsburgh.
Thus Conan, I’d say that your example is void, as the buying power for the employees stays the same no matter which grocer wins.
Report comment to moderator
I lacked the strength to read through all the comments, so forgive me if I am merely recapitulating what has already been said. It occurs to me (in my youthful ignorance) that whether we are Capitalists or Communists is secondary to whether we are willing to be sympathetic Christians (point 2) who love our community (point 3). If I count nothing as my own and instead am concerned primarily with the welfare of my brother, then I would be a great capitalist…or communist. Would it be fair to consider the earliest Christians to be at-liberty capitalists who freely, sympathetically chose something akin to Communism (or at least communitarianism…if that could be considered a word).
Conan: though I did not read all the comments, I read your last one. Seeing that you actually used the word “vacuous” in a sentence made me chuckle on the inside
Report comment to moderator
ROM116: Prices are not dependably proportional to wages. Over the past few months, gas and food prices have increased; all of my utilities are up. My salary has not risen proportionally.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, but in the given general scenario, the grocery system with lower wages has lower prices, while the grocery system of higher wages has higher prices.
Concerning the increase in utilities, gas and food, they have risen in part because of inflation and in part because of increased demand on fuel with the same supply. Prices depend on the total costs, materials, labor, processing, etc. and the demand of any given product. Usually one of them is the dominating factor, and in the case of utilities, it is supply of fuel.(as well as subsidies for corn based ethanol which also increase food prices) In the scenario you proposed, it was labor. The nice thing about said utility spike is that it hits everyone equally, all of our buying power in terms of electrical energy has been reduced.
Report comment to moderator
Repy to RWHAWK #66: “I suggest that if we only focus on the NT we are missing the total nature and character of God and His will for an economic and civil government system. God instituted capitalism through many examples of the OT….”
Brother, I support general conclusions of economic and political conservatism. But arguing that the Old Testament, and God’s will today, mandates a capitalistic economy and some particular form of civil government fails by connecting dots that are outside both testaments. Yes, the OT greatly contributes to our understanding of the total character and nature of God, but only in what the OT says, not in what it does not. It does define beautifully for us what justice means (eye for an eye, cow for a cow, etc.), and what mercy means (caring for the orphan and widow and alien in the land), which are instructive to any form of economy and polity.
But the OT commands and describes a governmental and economic system for Israel alone, not for any other nation: an exclusive theocracy, ruled first by judges and prophets, and then by kings because of corrupted interests of the Israelites.
Nothing in the Bible, OT or NT, suggests that God’s will for any other nation, then or now, is to replicate the political and economic system of OT Israel. Gentiles never were, and never will be under Mosaic Law. If you are convinced otherwise, you must overthrow the US Constitution because its three-branch form of government, bill of rights, and ultimate sovereignty in the people are incompatible with God’s rule as a temporal form of government. The US founding fathers created a secular state that presumed it citizens’ character would reflect that of the spiritual kingdom of God, but did not attempt to institute some kind of biblically-modeled state directly.
Neither OT nor NT define as principles a “private sector” versus a public sector, “private” property versus public property, free enterprise versus public service, etc. (except, perhaps for the OT public support and service of the priesthood, which would violate our 1st Amendment).
In the OT, all land was to revert to its original recipients every 50th year (the year of Jubilee), regardless of what “free-enterprise” transactions occurred in between. So was land ownership private or public? Could be the latter. In the Jubilee year God Himself must have been guilty of the crime, as you put it, of “ungodly wealth redistribution (aka legal plunder)… and in violation of the 10 commandments.” I don’t think you can consider the Jubilee system, or the 7th-year freeing of slaves, compatible with capitalism and free enterprise, but they certainly are compatible with the OT.
God, for His own sovereign purposes, institutes governments irrespective of their form, and has permitted Satan to have authority in the world, for now. God used pagan nations as His “arm” in punishing Israel, and put pagan Pharaoh in place to demonstrate His mighty power. While all people individually should adhere to His moral laws, and are blessed if they do, neither OT nor NT mandate for Gentile nations any particular form of government or economy.
The world is collapsing because men are choosing darkness rather than light, not because they are choosing socialism over capitalism. Followers of Jesus thrive because our Lord’s kingdom transcends the kingdoms of this world. That will be the case until the day Jesus returns to earth in person as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is our “blessed hope.” He will take over politically and economically when “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Rev 11:15)
Report comment to moderator
Rom: Indeed, but in the given general scenario, the grocery system with lower wages has lower prices, while the grocery system of higher wages has higher prices.
Oh, I see. I think you’ve missed the point of the scenario.
Imagine you’re a grocery buyer in this small two-store town. You go into store B and find a gallon of milk for $3.75, a loaf of bread for $1 and cans of beans for $1.10 each. Then you go into store A and find that the exact same products (same brand, same size) cost 3.25, $0.75 and $0.85.
Which store will get your business?
Most people will shop at store A, which means the owner of store B faces a choice: He can reduce his costs by lowering his wages and benefits for employees, or he can go out of business.
The end result is that the people who don’t own stores, who are dependent on earning a paycheck from those who do, have no way to press for higher wages and better benefits. The free market works against them.
Now, I suppose you can argue that the low pay is ok because the grocery prices are also low, but that doesn’t mean that rent, gas, electricity and college tuition are going to adjust to meet their ability to pay.
The nice thing about said utility spike is that it hits everyone equally, all of our buying power in terms of electrical energy has been reduced.
Theoretically, but not practically. In practical terms, the person who has low pay and few reserves is affected dramatically by a rise in energy prices; the person who has high income and ample reserves ean adjust to the increase much more readily.
Report comment to moderator
I would not say the free market worked against them, as if the wages go too low, they can always leave the grocery business and work elsewhere. The thing with the free market is that you get what your labor is worth, which is why skilled labor is a great way to move up the socioeconomic ladder. You won’t get rich, but you can get comfortably middle class. Unskilled labor doesn’t pay well, never has, never will. I don’t know of anyone who chose to work the cashier for life, though if you would do so I would recommend getting employed at Costco, where the pay is quite good. (and the food prices cheaper than the prices you just listed)
A more likely and real life scenario would be to add an upper crust grocer like a Stew Leonards where you can get 12 bucks an hour pushing grocery carts and a Costco where part time you can make 15. They would be more expensive and cheaper respectively, yet the two near my neighberhood are right next to each other and neither is driving each other out of business. Something tells me both grocers A and B would be out of business quite soon, and both their employees would benefit.
Also if wages were suddenly depressed, stuff like rent, gas and electricity would get cheaper as rent would have to be reduced since no one is renting while gas and electricity would go down because of reduced demand. College tuition is actually starting to decrease at some colleges, and I know that many top of the line universities are offering massive financial aid in the hopes that some of the hardworking poor and middle-class students will donate money to their alma mater as thanks in the future. The nice thing about the free market is that their is no simple scenario like the one you proposed.
Report comment to moderator
The thing with the free market is that you get what your labor is worth, which is why skilled labor is a great way to move up the socioeconomic ladder. You won’t get rich, but you can get comfortably middle class. Unskilled labor doesn’t pay well, never has, never will. I don’t know of anyone who chose to work the cashier for life,
No, but many, many people work those kinds of jobs for a while, and need to earn enough to meet their needs. I know a young family (two adults and a baby) who are dependent on cashier-level jobs for their entire income. A plan is in place to move them out of that level, but they still need them for the next four or five months while waiting for the wheels to turn.
Thanks to minimum-wage laws and other worker protections, they can earn enough in these low-level jobs to stay afloat in the short term. If it were purely a free-market situation, who knows if they could?
Report comment to moderator
The current minimum wage laws do more to hit the lower class than help, as with the increase in labor costs, less people are hired and prices rise. Even without those protections, they could still make it with a low-skilled job like being a cashier. There are many places that pay more than the current minimum wage for cashiers. I mentioned this before but wholesalers and others do so, and those businesses are doing quite well in the recession. So yeah, in a free-market situation, they could.
Report comment to moderator
The current minimum wage laws do more to hit the lower class than help, as with the increase in labor costs, less people are hired and prices rise.
Is the absolute number of jobs the only important factor? What good does it do to have more people hired if the wages they earn are so low that they can’t earn enough to make the hours worked worth it?
Report comment to moderator
Then they don’t work and others do.
Big business has no problem with minimum wage laws and the panoply of other regulations. Helps eliminate competition.
Report comment to moderator
“We’re talking about grocery stores selling the same products.”
But thats not realistic for starters. Kroger doesnt compete against itself for instance.
Kroger will compete against Walmart’s food and their products do vary.
“The free market favors the retailer with the lower costs and lower retail prices. Grocer A will be rewarded, in a pure free market, for paying lower wages to his employees.”
Then please explain companies like Apple? Low cost can attract demand, certainly. But it is not the only factor that draws the consumer. It is the total product from cost to quality to fad, etc that helps determine what consumers want.
Once again you’ve cut short reality.
“I pay a higher tax rate than people who earn less than I do. Am I being “stripped of [my[ money simply for having prospered” to a greater degree than someone with half my income? I don’t see it that way.”
Doesn’t matter if you do see it that way. The truth is, as you acknowledge you are being taxed more, simply for making more, regardless of how you came about the money.
“Taxes are the price we pay for living in a free society.”
No, they are the price you pay for having a government. Considering plenty of non-free societies still tax.
“It’s how we pay for those things that serve the society.”
And buying a new car, giving to charity, going to the grocery store, don’t accomplish the very same thing, despite the tax?
I would argue it has a far more direct impact than taxes. As taxes go to the governing body to ensure your freedom from other countries, so that you can spend your money how you see fit.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the government can never spend your money better than you can. It is impossible. It loses value the moment it swaps hands, and the more hands, the less there is for them to hand back to society.
But a consumer, directly purchasing, goes immediately to the producer. There is no loss from multiple hand exchanges.
Report comment to moderator
“Which store will get your business?”
Does it make much a difference if you use coupons?
Couponing can save 50 to 60% on groceries.
Store B, despite higher prices, may have better coupon incentives as well…If I’m gonna shop at target over walmart, it better deliver on the better goods they claim for the higher price.
Btw, most grocery stores match low prices these days, esp Walmart.
So if the products are the exact same, I’m most likely to go to the closest store, or the store that is easiest to get in and out of. Perhaps I’ll go to the store farther away if I know it will be less busy at a given hour.
Multiple factors play in to it, and price to the consumer for a grocery store, can frankly be negligible when compared to other stores.
Why do so many people buy gas at a station that is 10 cents higher than one across the street?? I see that all the time, I’m sure you do to. Well, I see it all the time because there’s a couple down the street that do this. It’s 3.62 for one, and 3.72 at the other.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Then please explain companies like Apple? Low cost can attract demand, certainly. But it is not the only factor that draws the consumer. It is the total product from cost to quality to fad, etc that helps determine what consumers want.
Apple earns income from advanced technology and extremely good design. It’s not the same kind of situation as two competing grocery stores selling essentially identical inventories of products. You’re comparing Apple to oranges.
Report comment to moderator
Which is why I also used gas stations as an example. The product can infact be the same gas from the same supplier, yet across the street it’s 10 cents higher.
Apple competes with MS. It’s hardly any difference as to what goes into them. Even Apple uses Intel now. And the point of Apple is that they charge a premium for their name basically. It’s why plenty will still go to the more expensive Grocer B if they just want the name, be seen there, its closer to drive to, etc.
In fact out of the chip makers, Intel is the more expensive, contains more of the market share by a wide margin than AMD…yet I buy AMD for a multitude of reasons.
Low price is never the only determining factor between competing companys. Even grocery stores. The only time you can knock it all down to just price is when Grocer A and B are both the same company. Even then, one store may be better managed than the other.
Report comment to moderator
No, low price isn’t the sole determinant, but it’s a significant one. A lot of people will drive a little farther and put up with poor service if it means the groceries cost $40 less.
Report comment to moderator
And gas isn’t a great comparison. A nickel difference per gallon is only a dollar more for a 20-gallon tank. That may not make it worth crossing four lanes of traffic for many people, but a $30 or $40 difference on the cost of a week’s worth of groceries might.
Report comment to moderator
and put up with poor service
And you’re trying to make the case for minimum wage?
Report comment to moderator
$30 or $40 difference on the cost of a week’s worth of groceries might.
Strange to hear someone lobbying to eliminate that opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
“A lot of people will drive a little farther and put up with poor service if it means the groceries cost $40 less.”
What grocery stores have a 40 dollar difference in prices? Esp if they price match?? ?? ? ?
Your telling us that the Stores A and B sell the same grocery product at a $40 dollar difference?
Be realistic please. At most grocery stores differ by a couple of dollars, because each product is only a few cents difference.
You just can’t eliminate reality to try and make an absurd point. It entirely destroys not only reality, but any hope of proper adjustment that may be necessary.
It’s kinda like building the Titanic on the basis of what ice you can see above sea level…
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, Conan is saying the price for *a week’s worth* of groceries may differ by $40 based on disparity of pay at each store. I haven’t run the math, but doesn’t it seem plausible?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I’m talking about a full shopping trip. If milk is 50 cents less, and bread is 20 cents less, and canned beans are 10 cents less and steak is $1.50 less, etc.
Compared to a difference of a dollar for a gas fillup … your comparison isn’t apples to apples.
#90: The converse is arguing for saving money for customers by paying employees sweatshop wages. Is that the position you want to take?
Report comment to moderator
No, that’s not the converse. Nobody is arguing *for* paying sweatshop wages. Nobody’s even directly arguing for saving money. The argument is for the *right* of an employer to do what he wants with his own capital–for the business owner to set the wage and prospective employee to accept or reject it. Walmart doesn’t have any minimum wage jobs, so far as I know (I *do* know the head of Walmart lobbied for a *raise* to the minimum wage, despite already paying above it–the higher wage would hurt Walmart’s smaller *competition,* but not Walmart). So the kid with no experience who got the job at Store A works for a year at a low wage, then gets on at Walmart for a higher wage once he’s padded his resume. Or, if the kid was that great, Store A owner may counteroffer. If owner A doesn’t find a decent replacement, he raises the starting wage in hopes of attracting better candidates.
You’ve argued elsewhere for laws mandating sick pay. Here, you’re arguing *against* the opportunity for a single mother to save at least as much money buying groceries as she would receive in sick pay. The maze of laws to address these problems is bewildering.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not so bewildering. Employers don’t have an absolute right to exploit unskilled labor. I don’t trust corporations at all. I don’t trust the government all that much, but reasonable minimum wages and minimal levels of benefit are effective.
Report comment to moderator
Employers don’t have an absolute right to exploit unskilled labor.
That’s great. Who said they do?
Report comment to moderator
Mac: That’s great. Who said they do?
You did. Or did you not just say, “The argument is for the *right* of an employer to do what he wants with his own capital–for the business owner to set the wage and prospective employee to accept or reject it.”
Report comment to moderator
How do you do it? How do you get “absolute right to exploit unskilled labor” from “the right to pay a wage of one’s choice”? It’s almost comical how you apply such an extreme understanding to arguments posed by others.
Report comment to moderator
OK Mac, TELL ME what limitations you think are reasonable for “the right to pay a wage of one’s choice.” You state that as the opposite of a mandatory minimum wage, so I took it — quite reasonably I think — to mean you were arguing the only constraints should be market forces.
If that’s not what you meant, then tell me what you did mean. Be clear, don’t make me guess and then criticize me for guessing wrong (or, what I suspect you’re actually doing, don’t make me guess so you can then criticize me for guessing no matter what my guess is.)
Report comment to moderator
100.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you’re making this far more difficult than it has to be because of your insistence on making the most sinister application of what is said. Either that, or you’re woefully careless in how you frame others’ arguments. It simply DOES NOT FOLLOW that an employer has “an absolute right to exploit unskilled labor” merely because that employer is allowed to determine a wage. Again, that’s YOUR question begging calculus. There is no law (sorry to break it to you) that says anyone has to work. A person may CHOOSE to work–or not–for low-paying grocer A. If the work is too “exploitative,” in the employee’s view, he may quit.
There are other aspects of exploitation I’ve already conceded may be addressed by law–fraud, theft, endangerment–so your assertion that anyone is arguing for an “absolute” license to make poor people miserable is, as always, misguided.
Report comment to moderator
Good, Cheryl D. As soon as I hit post, I realized I had squandered the opportunity for myself. I’m delighted someone else was able to seize it.
Kudos.
Report comment to moderator
So do you then consider it an acceptable situation if an unskilled worker’s options are to work for very low wages, or not work? Is that enough to exempt the employer from being considered exploitative of unskilled workers?
Note that I am asking you clarifying questions, not making statements.
Report comment to moderator
How are you defining “exploit”? You mean “to take unfair advantage of”? I’m not seeing exactly where the “exploitation” would be in your scenario.
Yes, it is an acceptable situation if an unskilled worker’s options are to work for low wages or not at all. It’s the *employer’s* capital. Nobody *has to* work for him. I’m sorry the world works this way, but it’s unreasonable to expect of every job a wage that supports a household. Even so, there can be much merit to holding down even a low paying job.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: it’s unreasonable to expect of every job a wage that supports a household
Now you’re the one misrepresenting the other’s argument. I never said that every job must pay a wage that supports a household.
Every job should pay a wage that fairly compensates the employee for his time. Many people actually don’t have the option of not working, because they need an income. Low pay is better than no pay, so if that’s all that’s available to them, they will take it.
I am saying that as a nation that prides itself on wealth and compassion, it should be unacceptable to have people working hard for eight or ten hours a day, every day, and still be barely able to buy food and gas with the income.
Report comment to moderator
“Exploit” means to pay the least you can get away with, and provide the stingiest benefits possible, because you know your employees have nowhere else to go.
Report comment to moderator
Conan: In another thread, you said this:
If you advocate a position such as, businesses should not have to pay sick time, I do think you should justify why it’s ok to put a struggling young family’s ability to support themselves at risk so a highly profitable business doesn’t have to become very slightly less profitable.
You also alluded to a hypothetical mom who got sick, and a company’s obligation to sustain her with sick pay.
Discussing minimum wage, you said,
The employees need to earn enough to live on…
Sorry, but you can’t accuse me of misrepresenting you; but I’ll accept your clarification.
No matter whether we have a minimum wage or not, we will always live in a world where “[l]ow pay is better than no pay, so if that’s all that’s available to [people], they will take it.” Even in periods of low unemployment, we still have millions of people who might otherwise work for a low wage being squeezed out of the market by a law that keeps employers from affording to pay them. That’s unfortunate, and exacerbates various problems. Anyone should know why.
Report comment to moderator
In both the hypotheticals about sick time I was clearly positing situations where people are earning a living, if barely, through their jobs. It’s not valid to extrapolate that argument to the minimum wage or to all situations of people holding jobs. A high school student earning some spending money with a summer job isn’t in the same category as a single mom waitressing to support herself and her baby.
Even the earlier comment about the minimum wage you quote was based on a situation where people are depending on the job for sustenance. I didn’t say or imply that everybody working is doing that.
Sorry, but you can’t accuse me of misrepresenting you
Not if context doesn’t matter, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
You tied a minimum wage to the necessities of living. You’ve clarified now, but based on those and numerous other comments, I didn’t misrepresent you.
Report comment to moderator
But I didn’t argue that every job must provide someone a full living.
If you can take what I did say to mean that, you really have no room to object that I took what you said to mean employers should have an absolute right to exploit unskilled labor.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, what’s the difference between “enough to live on” and “a full living”? Work on your clarity, please. For most people, “absolute right” is pretty clear (and nothing approaching what anyone here said). But not when it comes from your keyboard. Either way, you’ve at least clarified that you didn’t really mean “enough to live on” (I guess) so I won’t make that assumption again.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, what’s the difference between “enough to live on” and “a full living”?
Context, Mac, context. If I talk about the ability of a worker to earn enough to live on in the context of discussing people who depend on their incomes for a living, that doesn’t mean the high-school kid working at McDonald’s for a summer has the same need.
What’s the difference between “… the *right* of an employer to do what he wants with his own capital–for the business owner to set the wage and prospective employee to accept or reject it” and “absolute right?”
Report comment to moderator
The context was minimum wage, big guy. Who cares if it’s McDonald’s or Ed’s, you were talking about a minimum wage as if it applied to “people who depend on their incomes for a living.” It’s fine you’ve now clarified, sort of, that you weren’t advocating for a wage capable of supporting a household.
A wage is one part of a large spectrum of an employer’s disposition toward his employee. There are all kinds of ways an employer may be fairly treating employees short of high wages, i.e., low wages need not *equal* exploitation, as you insist. Also, you frame the argument in wildly careless terms. If you were only talking about the single aspect of wages, spell that out. But you said, “Employers don’t have an absolute right to exploit unskilled labor.” That’s so broad–yet not out of character with your other comments that pit employer against employee in so many aspects of business–that it’s easy to take it as “an absolute right” to *truly* exploit workers, e.g., alter payment contracts; withhold safety information, etc.
Whatever.
Report comment to moderator
You’re just twisting my words, post by post.
Look, I said, and I maintain, that people who are dependent on their jobs for their livelihoods should be able to count on an income sufficient to pay the bills. I did not say, and do not maintain, that “every job [should pay] a wage that supports a household.” (#104).
You can continue to distort what I said while simultaneously complaining about my allegedly doing the same to you, or we can call it clarified and actually get back to the substance, or we can drop it altogether. I’d prefer the second option, and I’d be ok with the third, but I’m not really interested in the first.
Report comment to moderator
ot out of character with your other comments that pit employer against employee in so many aspects of business
Corporations act in the best interests of shareholders and owners. Not employees. Not consumers. This is fact. Laws that place limits on the ability of business to be self-interested at the expense of employees and consumers are good.
Why do you suppose it is that the government allows corporate agriculture to sell genetically-modified food without even a label identifying it, but conducts lengthy undercover sting operations to shut down family farms?
Why do you suppose it is that Internet providers oppose net neutrality (and have convinced a lot of consumers to also) on the grounds of “freedom” when what they really want is the ability to strike deals to favor some content providers over others — thus controlling the content their customers can access?
Why do you suppose it is that business groups have historically opposed worker-friendly laws such as accessibility for the disabled or FMLA? (They lost those battles, but not for lack of fighting.)
Why do you suppose it is that businesses try to weaken or ban labor unions?
Companies don’t care about us. As long as they can sell products you like at prices you’ll pay, they’re not concerned with whether we’re getting full information or truly free choice. And as long as they can keep enough people complacent, they have no reason to change their ways.
Free-marketers don’t seem to get that.
Report comment to moderator
How in the world does 114 clarify anything? Are you saying a minimum wage should be enough “to pay the bills”? If so, you’re making my point. If not, do you propose to make a law mandating a wage for all workers sufficient to pay their bills? If so, that’s saying the same thing. If not, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
And I’ve already said I’ve accepted your clarification (although it’s hardly clear). I acknowledged it couple times now, so don’t make me out to be the stick in the mud. On the other hand, I don’t suppose you’ll stop your ridiculous accusations–based on nothing that was actually *written* by anyone–that free-marketers don’t care for the poor, as your 1st couple posts here demonstrate.
None of what you describe in 115 needs to be addressed specifically by laws, and are even exacerbated by them; besides, plenty of companies lobby *for* such laws. They’re far harsher on smaller business.
Pro-regulators don’t seem to get that.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m talking about a full shopping trip. If milk is 50 cents less, and bread is 20 cents less, and canned beans are 10 cents less and steak is $1.50 less, etc.”
That may be true if your comparing a grocery store to a gas station…but grocery stores are not that far off, and most price match.
Where as milk may be 50cents cheaper at A than B, B is likely to offer other incentives to get you in the door, such as price matching, or low price on soft drinks and chips in comparison to A.
“Corporations act in the best interests of shareholders and owners. Not employees. Not consumers. This is fact. Laws that place limits on the ability of business to be self-interested at the expense of employees and consumers are good.”
They may for a time, but if they do not satisfy the consumer, they will lose business. If they do stupid investments like AiG, Lehmans, etc theyll ruin their company…
By the way, who makes the laws? The government. What happens when political self interest take part? Is a “minimum” wage law possibly just as bad for the lowly paid worker? You challenge that corporations don’t act in behalf of its consumers/employers.
I challenge, what makes a corporation any different than the government? The government is supposed to be for its people too, but they are just consumed by political self interests and investments to fatten their slice of the pie all the same as the corporations your so afraid of. And that fully answers your question here:
“Why do you suppose it is that the government allows corporate agriculture to sell genetically-modified food without even a label identifying it, but conducts lengthy undercover sting operations to shut down family farms?”
The government, instead of being for the people, has developed a corporate interest for itself, rather than protecting the freedom of business.
“Companies don’t care about us. As long as they can sell products you like at prices you’ll pay, they’re not concerned with whether we’re getting full information or truly free choice. And as long as they can keep enough people complacent, they have no reason to change their ways.”
Exchange the word “Government” for “Companies”.
So why then do I prefer a business to have more control over what it pays it’s employers? Because it only affects its employees and its consumers. Not an entire country. A corporation that pays poorly, or offers poor products does not survive long.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: They may for a time, but if they do not satisfy the consumer, they will lose business. If they do stupid investments like AiG, Lehmans, etc theyll ruin their company…
You think they care about that? In a bygone (and probably somewhat mythical) era when businesses were owned and run by earnest entrepreneurs trying to build a well-reputed brand over the long haul, that would matter.
Today, it’s all about short-term profits. The investors are happy, the executives get multi-million dollar bonuses, and if the business later takes a PR hit, who cares? And the business won’t even take much of a PR hit for much of what they do — it’ll be obscured from public view or confused with deliberate misinformation so that the public won’t understand what happened or why it matters.
Put a few lawmakers in your pocket with some generous contributions (thank you Supreme Court!) and you’re all set to bamboozle the public in ways big and small.
I challenge, what makes a corporation any different than the government? The government is supposed to be for its people too, but they are just consumed by political self interests and investments to fatten their slice of the pie all the same as the corporations your so afraid of.
To an extent, yes, but with a couple of important differences:
* I can vote to replace politicians who aren’t serving my interests.
* Government doesn’t directly profit from its activities the way business does. Individual power is rightly to be feared and distrusted, but the model is different.
The government, instead of being for the people, has developed a corporate interest for itself, rather than protecting the freedom of business.
The real answer is, big agriculture companies (Monsanto is one such) wants to use genetically modified seeds to grow vegetables with various advantages — from a production standpoint — over natural ones. The effects of these vegetables, whether fed to humans or as animal feed, aren’t well-understood and some tests suggest they could change the animals that eat them at the genetic level… so big agriculture’s solution is not to rethink the approach but to lobby lawmakers for rules that allow them to sell the products without informing consumers.
Monsanto will also sue you if you’re a small farmer trying to grow crops as nature intended and the wind brings some of Monsanto’s GMO seed into your field — not only contaminating your crops but also demanding you pay them for the privilege (and putting a lot of small farms out of business).
This is the benevolent world of modern corporations.
Report comment to moderator
You think they care about that? In a bygone (and probably somewhat mythical) era when businesses were owned and run by earnest entrepreneurs trying to build a well-reputed brand over the long haul, that would matter.
That’s crazy talk. Can you imagine if Intel took that position? Or Avis? Or Lowes? You think Circuit City shareholders are happy with how things turned out? I work for a company that employs 300 people. It has a CEO and stakeholders. I’ve worked for a company that employs upward of 80,000, and for companies of various sizes in between, many with shareholders. In each, customer focus was *HUGE*. And I’m not just talking propaganda from town hall meetings. Furthermore, the supply chains involved in supporting these business interests are likewise dedicated to customer concerns. They have all kinds of capital dedicated to that emphasis. For scores of companies, large and small, it’s simply impossible to stay in business without a great sensitivity to customer demands.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: True, and I spoke overly broadly; but companies with a focus on customer care are already doing the things that good regulations would require, so regs won’t hurt them; and companies that are not so concerned are prevented from doing harm by the regs.
You didn’t comment on the example of Monsanto. This is one of the largest agricultural firms in the U.S., and at every turn they support (and actively lobby lawmakers for) policies that allow them to monkey with our food and not tell us.
They’re not concerned about the end user because most consumers are unaware of where the food in the stores comes from and what might have been done to it, and those few who are aware they can fight by such ridiculous (yet inexplicably successful so far) tactics as suing farmers whose organic crops are contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO seeds.
And from the standpoint of many consumers, Monsanto IS taking care of the customers. They produce plentiful inexpensive food… and as long as the customers don’t know or don’t care that the price they’re paying for the low-cost food may be long-term health problems, they’re not going to see a downside.
The housing market tumble has come in large part because unregulated lending practices allowed unscrupulous lenders to knowingly make bad loans and then sell them off to unsuspecting buyers as securities, before the borrowers had time to default. The lenders made some money on both sides (lending fees, a few rounds of interest, then profit from selling), leaving the bond-buyers stuck with worthless bonds and borrowers drowning in debt that an ethical lender would not have let them take on.
Circuit City? The former CEO was pulling in over $2 million a year at the same time he was laying off employees to replace them with cheaper ones. It was only after he screwed over loyal employees and the company’s shareholders that the board finally forced him out in 2008. No, the shareholders surely weren’t happy .. but Schoonover was probably not shedding tears for them when he deposited his millions. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10048064-60.html)
Report comment to moderator
There have always existed companies that will screw people over. Regs don’t and won’t prevent it.
Monsanto: It’s interesting that we both likely have the same unfavorable view of Monsanto, yet look for opposite means of solution to the problem. Monsanto is a creature *of* regulatory tweaking. Private groups can and do check on food labels. By and large, I trust labels bearing the stamp of one of these private orgs. I wouldn’t trust a govt-backed label for the reasons you mention, among others–lawmakers are in Monsanto’s pocket. It’s unfortunate, but it’s difficult to imagine extricating that kind of special interest from influencing laws any time soon. *Do away* with govt-constructed regulations and let the market manage itself. Part of the reason consumers (I’m one of them) don’t make more effort to educate themselves on food content is because they (we) assume govt approval means all is well. We know that’s not true, though, don’t we?
Circuit City speaks to your point where you mentioned *shareholders.* The way I read it, their “best interest” wasn’t served.
Report comment to moderator
The problem is that the law doesn’t require companies to inform consumers that the food is genetically modified. It’s not on the label. And in the absence of a huge groundswell of consumer resistance — which will first require people to be informed and shown why they should want the information — market pressure isn’t going to put it there. A law could, though.
And no, in the Circuit City example, the shareholders best interests were not served; my statement was a generalization, of course there will be cases where it doesn’t apply.
Report comment to moderator
Well, in Pennsylvania, there were labels on many food items until Monsanto lobbied to outlaw them. It can and should be handled privately. With govt running it, you’ll never get a groundswell of consumer anything. That’s the way things work.
Is there some law you would have enacted to keep Circuit City from happening?
Report comment to moderator
Really? There are a lot of non-GMO foods labeled as such, and certified organic food by law can’t contain any. But that’s the only way to really know is to seek out things that specify they don’t have them, since there’s no law that makers have to identify those that do.
If Monsanto actually got Pennsylvania to outlaw food labels identifying the ones that are non-GMO, that’s a whole new level of evil.
As for CC, I don’t know. There may not be a legal way to prevent a CEO from being callous and selfish. But the market isn’t likely to do it either.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I posted in haste. Monsanto successfully lobbied to ban the labeling of milk containers with notices that the product did not contain a certain hormone (or some such nasty thing). It was/is evil. I agree with you that corporations often exercise undue and adverse influence over politicians. I hope you realize lawmakers from the left, as well as the right, make themselves beholden to these big money interests. Also, you may know there is a pronounced distaste among many libertarians for big business; it may be more accurate to say a distaste for the favoritism afforded big business (at the expense of the small) by the myriad of laws and regulations to which big business is often immune. (sorry for the clunky writing here; in a hurry)…
My little counterargument about Monsanto was meant to serve as an example where companies voluntarily *do* provide informational labeling on their products. One would have to ask why, if a company was not required to provide such labeling, it would do so? Clearly, it’s because it believes it is good for sales (i.e., “the market” is its incentive for doing it).
The market may not always prevent the selfish CEO, but unless they’re simple idiots, the people who served on CC’s board (or whatever it was) likely won’t be so complacent next time; they probably made plenty of blunders along the way–mistakes that other boards do avoid, and which are driven by a desire to remain in business (i.e., driven by “the market”).
Report comment to moderator
That’s evil enough. Consumers deserve the right to have full information on products and free choice. That’s my position on raw milk too, which the FDA is feverishly trying to eliminate — don’t ban it, just put a label on it so I know what it is and let me choose.
So I do not argue that government is always right and I take your point about politicians too often being corruptible and craven. And yes, neither left nor right is uniquely guilty. We agree on those points.
However, note this: My little counterargument about Monsanto was meant to serve as an example where companies voluntarily *do* provide informational labeling on their products. One would have to ask why, if a company was not required to provide such labeling, it would do so? Clearly, it’s because it believes it is good for sales (i.e., “the market” is its incentive for doing it).
But the labels we’re talking about here are companies trying to reach the subset of the market that wants foods to be more pure. Bovine growth hormone (BGH) may be carcinogenic. Antibiotics may encourage the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs. Both are commonly used in conventional dairy farming. And corn-fed cattle are eating GMO corn.
Right now, there’s no law requiring that food packaging inform consumers where those things have been used, but awareness is growing to the point that a significant minority of grocery buyers would like to avoid those products. Organic growers, farmers that raise cattle the old-fashioned way, can market to that group by calling attention to that.
But that doesn’t protect the less-informed consumer. And Montsanto seeks to squelch that information because they don’t want people thinking about where their food comes from or how it’s grown/raised. It isn’t as beneficial overall as laws requiring Monsanto to put a “genetically modified” label on products.
The big food industry is quite evil. High-fructose corn syrup is commonly used as a sweetener in commercial foods, but it’s becoming less popular because more consumers are awakening to the fact that it’s possibly harmful. So the industry, a year or two ago, started running TV commercials calling it “corn sugar” and trying to persuade us that “sugar is sugar” where from corn or cane.
Well, no. First, the corn is likely GMO (so are sugar beets, another source of sugar), but sugar cane is less likely to be.
Secondly, HFCS has health effects that sugar doesn’t have, none of them good. (See http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/)
But when you have the muscle to dominate the market and squeeze out the little guy, in the absence of laws to provide limits and mandate information, the consumer has little alternative but to buy and eat the frankenfood. If the vast majority of consumers were concerned (and the numbers do seem to be growing), market pressure could force changes. But I don’t think the market alone is going to do it anytime soon.
Report comment to moderator
For anyone interested in how evil Monsanto is, a good article: http://politicsoftheplate.com/?p=844
The article concerns a new suit filed on behalf of organic farmers asking a court to rule that should their crops become contaminated with GMO seeds, Monsanto can’t sue them. Really, they should be able to sue Monsanto for damages to their organic crops, but how long do you think a small farmer could pursue legal action against a huge company with plenty of money to spend on delaying tactics?
Report comment to moderator
When people (like me) refer to the nanny state, what they largely fear is that government sanctioning of this, that and everything can lead to complacency and a false sense of security. The food label thing is a prime example (along with govt ed—different thread). People are poorly informed and unconcerned because they think the government’s got their back—“Certainly the USDA, FDA, the blah blah inspection act, the mandated label blah blah means the stuff I eat is good for me, especially since Monsanto-friendly Obama appointee Tom Vilsack is heading up the USDA!”
The poor you will always have with you. Same with greedy CEOs. Same with corrupt, self-interested politicians in bed with said CEOs. Govt isn’t going to get this food label thing right no matter what they/we try. People,–the market—would do a much better job. Go ahead and buy the unlabeled milk—at your own risk! But my family and friends and I will buy the other stuff. As you mention, Conan, there is a growing awareness of food dangers, but I see that as an almost wholly grassroots phenomenon, and no thanks to any government thing.
Re, the Monsanto-Canadian farmer case. I haven’t studied it, but I just know there has to be some kind of ridiculous intellectual property/plant patent law—once again, punitive to the little guy—that facilitates big business’s beatdown of the smaller competition. I don’t have time to dig into that, and I know it looks like I’m playing it off, but I’m highly suspect that the problem there is too much govt involvement rather than too little.
Report comment to moderator
Correction: Vilsack’s Sec of Ag.
Report comment to moderator
I’d say not too much nor too little but wrongheaded. If there is such a law (and I tend to think you’re right) then the government can change it. What we need is enough people to demand the government do so.
Report comment to moderator
We have different levels of optimism (stating the obvious here) regarding govt ability to get it just right. Maybe here or there we can point to some law that has been somewhat benign, but on the whole, looking “at the landscape,” we see politicians doing what many greedy CEOs do–acting in their own selfish interests. I bet some small farmers bought the Democrat line–”we’re for the little guy!”–and voted for Obama. Then they got Vilsack. (Republicans are no better; worse in plenty of ways). Voters likely do that all the time, figuring *now* we got the right guys in there; *now* we’re gonna see some changes! They wish!
It’s naive (in my view) to think the corporate world is populated with self-gratifying moguls, but it’s different with govt. *They’re SO in bed together!* Limit govt. It makes stuff worse.
Report comment to moderator
I have no illusion that government is pure and flawless, and I’ve tried to make that clear. I’m particularly interested in the food supply right now so that’s where my examples are coming from, but there are others. I’m well aware of the faults of government.
But if you limit government, reduce its regulatory role, than what is going to limit business? Who is going to prevent selfish businesses from being destructive if not a regulator? (Please note I am not indicting all businesses; just those that choose to pursue profit at the expense of ethical behavior.)
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another example: John Boehner insists on measures to reduce the deficit, but refuses to consider ending corporate welfare for oil companies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/10/reid-to-boehner-if-you-wa_n_859894.html
His spokesman said: “Our goal is to increase the supply of American energy to lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create American jobs. This tax hike would make prices at the pump even higher. That simply doesn’t make any sense.”
Well, why would it? Oil companies are not struggling to survive, they’re making record profits. The only reason that ending corporate welfare — an estimated $21 billion over ten years — would cause gas prices to rise is if the companies choose to raise the prices rather than absorb a small reduction to their net profits.
The Republicans said it was vital cut funding for NPR in the name of deficit reduction — a few million dollars? — but refuse to touch billions of dollars in giveaways to companies that are already wildly profitable.
What’s that about?
So yeah, corporations and politicians are in bed together and we can’t trust the government to regulate business if we do it with our eyes closed. But we can, if we get the voters informed and engaged, put politicians into office that will.
Report comment to moderator
“Today, it’s all about short-term profits.”
For many it is, yes. But the check and balance to that is…no bailouts. Short term, high risk/reward gambling has its severe consequences.
But many millionaires, and many billionaires even, understand the importance of consistent long term profits. I would argue that since not every bank, insurance company, got caught up in that mess that there are many who are not all about the “short term”.
“Put a few lawmakers in your pocket with some generous contributions (thank you Supreme Court!) and you’re all set to bamboozle the public in ways big and small.”
Why is that the SC’s fault? They were doing it before, they will do it without it being a “campaign” contribution by name. Look at Soros…
“* I can vote to replace politicians who aren’t serving my interests.”
And you can’t refrain from buying from corporations or individuals you don’t like?
“so big agriculture’s solution is not to rethink the approach but to lobby lawmakers for rules that allow them to sell the products without informing consumers.”
So your in agreement here that such collaboration is not actually freedom of the market, but rules to protect big business that is simply preferred by a law maker? And you wanted health insurance from these same people?
You flat out just acknowledged the problem. So the answer can not possibly be to ask lawmakers to make more rules. Even if they favor the small farmer with natural seeds, it’s still favoritism.
It’s not illegal for Monsato to design a new seed, provided it is approved by the FDA for production. It’s not illegal for a “natural” seed farmer to sell his crop as well. And are you making up scenarios or do you have an actual story/link of Monsato suing someone else for their own seeds ending up on another person’s property.
Report comment to moderator
Doing more research, seems Monsanto acts like MS and Apple when it comes to patents only worse.
However, if they are so evil…why is the Obama administration about to approve their new corn product?
That aside. I don’t care if genetic seeds can be patented. That’s legal by law and court precedent. The problem is in other farmers liability.
My understanding though is that the PVPA actually allows farmers to re-use seeds. As there were a couple of exclusions in order to protect farmers. So even any “paperwork” signed by a farmer buying Monsanto’s seeds, that paperwork would be in violation of the PVPA
You have any links for cases where farmers have actually lost to court rulings in regards to liability if they never owned/purchased/knowingly planted Monsanto’s seeds? In other words, cross contamination is their liability, and not Monsant’s loss?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: It’s not illegal for Monsato to design a new seed, provided it is approved by the FDA for production. It’s not illegal for a “natural” seed farmer to sell his crop as well. And are you making up scenarios or do you have an actual story/link of Monsato suing someone else for their own seeds ending up on another person’s property. ….
You have any links for cases where farmers have actually lost to court rulings in regards to liability if they never owned/purchased/knowingly planted Monsanto’s seeds? In other words, cross contamination is their liability, and not Monsant’s loss?
Follow the link in post #127.
Report comment to moderator
“but how long do you think a small farmer could pursue legal action against a huge company with plenty of money to spend on delaying tactics?”
So I hadn’t gotten this far down in my reading yet.
I’d have countered sued Monsanto for cross contamination and possibly pollution and requested damages from them. It would be like Pepsi spilling their product into a coke can…that should easily be defensible considering that plants are considered the same patent wise. I have a hard time believing there isn’t a law firm out there willing to take down Monsanto on a class action.
There are lawsuits pending against EA for downloadable content false advertising class action suits…I can’t imagine the poor farmer has to fight this alone.
“But if you limit government, reduce its regulatory role, than what is going to limit business? Who is going to prevent selfish businesses from being destructive if not a regulator?”
Think about it Conan, if no one bails out AiG, when is the next time your going to see an AiG? Probably never, or at least until people forget why gambling is a bad idea for a business model…
The housing market bubble was a regulated event. You had the government, encouraging the practice all for the short term profit. The lack of a law, can be just as “regulating” as the existence of one, esp if the government is manipulating favorites. Even if they think it’s a good idea in our interest, the problem with them doing so affects the entire country when they are wrong.
But if the law is solely centered around protecting the freedom of the market to do business, and the laws do not apply favoritism to either and thus neither have an advantage, so that consumer demand dominates who succeeds and who fails.
Doing it that way, also prevents the vast majority of those who would go for “short term” profits. There’s no bailout, no net.
Monsanto isn’t evil for making new products. Their evil because they abuse their consumer base. It would be like Sony suing Xbox owners for not using Sony…The only reason they will stay afloat is if the government continues to favor them.
I would also argue that their time will run out anyway for such practices. The AiGs didn’t last long the moment they began abusing their consumer base.
By the way, labels are a fine idea, it’s something that even the FDA could do, but you aren’t going to get specific recipes, and seeing “genetically engineered” isnt going to phase anyone who doesn’t see any acute effects from consumption.
By the way, I also love Mountain Dew throwback (sugar cane). Hard to find in central Mississippi though.
Organic food also has it’s health risks. Your trading bacterial pathogens for possible carcinogenic down the road.
Perhaps, the FDA should be more transparent as well as to testing results. I believe alot of Monsanto’s requests got through without much testing. That’s more government encouragement…not proper regulation.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, just read the link in 127. They are suing Monsanto, but like the commenter says below the article. Go a step further and sue them for cross contamination. They are “ruining” the farmer’s traditional product.
I really don’t see how Monsanto has a leg to stand on, other than their bullying tactics, esp if the PVPA excludes farmer’s from seed reuse. (In other words, they can replant the seeds they bought without penalty).
Report comment to moderator
I agree, but at least one court has ruled in their favor, so there must be some bizarre legal argument that works.
I also agree the organic growers should be the ones suing for contamination. The problem is Monsanto has far deeper pockets. Would you sue if you knew it was very likely that you’d spend all your money fighting their delaying tactics until you went broke? Monsantao doesn’t have to be right, just powerful.
Report comment to moderator
You won’t find me arguing for corporate welfare, or any govt giveaways of any kind. I don’t think the practice really fits into this discussion. Again, it’s a bipartisan thing. Also, I’m hardly a Republican cheerleader, but I don’t think anyone argued for eliminating funding to NPR on the basis it was “vital” to deficit reduction. Maybe they did—I’m skeptical—but I think your partisanship is creeping into your phraseology again.
But if you limit government, reduce its regulatory role, than what is going to limit business? Who is going to prevent selfish businesses from being destructive if not a regulator?
Thorn has competently addressed various recent points on this, but I would also add i) we do have laws against theft, fraud, breach of contract, etc. Cozy relationships between govt and big business can make prosecuting those laws more difficult. *Sever the ties.* *Stop favoring industries.* Endless saws and regulations *create* a fertile environment for corruption, not curtail it. You mention Monsanto’s deep pockets? That’s right. They’ll have a far easier time navigating rules and regulations than will some local farmer. ii) We’ll never eliminate some businesses (or owners/boards/corporations etc.) from acting destructively, but as Thorn mentions, let the market penalize them. If you’re not satisfied with the level of disclosure given by a company’s executives and board, don’t invest there.
Report comment to moderator
“so there must be some bizarre legal argument that works.”
C A N A D A
Schmieser is from Saskatchewan, Canada. The link from your link’s website is broken it seems so I can’t get a full review of the case. However, wikipedia also mentions it was a Canadian case.
“Would you sue if you knew it was very likely that you’d spend all your money fighting their delaying tactics until you went broke? Monsanto doesn’t have to be right, just powerful.”
Yes, but I have some good experience in environmental background.
The defense for this is easy, so long as Mr. Percy for instance never bought Monsanto seed. Why? Because Monsanto would have to show proof, not only of seed composition, but as to if Mr. Percy purposely obtained it or knew he was using it.
If I’m Mr. Percy, their lab results are just gonna show that they have their seed in my product, and I’d launch a full scale attack that Monsanto has compromised my contracts with those who I’ve promised to deliever non-genetic crops too. Loss of Q&A as the result of cross contamination, esp since Monsanto’s seeds are not terminating as described in the patents
Yes, they could delay delay, but if they have no evidence, but their own “proof” of cross contamination, I’m sure I could find a lawfirm willing to go pro bono up front, esp if I promised them most of the winnings on the counter suit. The prestige of taking down Monsanto would be a career making case, I’m sure there’s options available.
Bully’s aren’t really that powerful anyway. They get over confident pretty quick.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Mac brings up a great point.
A free market isn’t a market void of law. It is void of laws that promote favoritism of specific businesses by the government.
It does not allow manipulation from businesses or from the government.
It only allows the consumer to determine who succeeds and who fails, which means laws that are enacted must go toward that end.
Report comment to moderator
Bottom line: yes, a Christian can be a capitalist, as Chick-fil-A shows.
One of the founding fathers stated something to the effect that our means of government requires a moral people, and will not work otherwise.
I suppose one could say the same for communism.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!