Get E-Mail Updates

Markets, Morality, and the Common Good

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Not long ago, those who demonized government and preached the gospel of free-market fundamentalism with evangelical zeal had few worries. The titans of corporate America were glorified on the cover of Fortune, "trickle-down" economics justified obscene wealth disparities, and a bullish Wall Street even gave working stiffs a piece of the action.

But things fall apart. Decades of deregulation, crass decisions at the highest levels of business and government, and a consumer culture that celebrates materialism are catching up with reality. One in 10 Americans -- nearly 28 million -- now depend on food stamps. Catholic Charities USA reports that 62 percent of its agencies have seen an increase in middle-class clients seeking help. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities predicts that the ranks of the poor, now at 36 million, could soon increase by as many as 10 million if the unemployment rate hits nine percent.

The financial crisis is also a moral crisis that requires a profound shift in values. Our nation's diverse religious communities have a proud tradition of speaking prophetically about economic justice, and the need to temper the cruel vagaries of the market with collective responsibility to care for our neighbors. Catholic social teaching, in particular, has a long history that warns against putting profit before human dignity. Amid another global economic collapse in 1931, Pope Pius XI affirmed a positive role for government and the obligation to pay workers a living wage. At a recent meeting of the Confederation of Italian Labor Unions, Pope Benedict XVI stressed that finding solutions for the global financial crisis requires "a new synthesis between the common good and the market, between capital and labor." Franklin D. Roosevelt drew heavily from Catholic social thought in shaping the New Deal. This social justice heritage can help us think anew about applying these values to current economic challenges.

Disgraced Wall Street baron Bernard Madoff and the banking executives dragged before Congress recently would not want to meet the Hebrew prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, who thundered against the greed of powerful kings enjoying lavish lifestyles while so many suffered around them. Those who trumpet a holy trinity of tax cuts, unfettered markets, and a savage brand of corporate capitalism serve narrow ideologies hard to square with the teachings of Jesus, who preached "good news to the poor" and kicked the money-changers out of the Temple. While the American ethos of "rugged individualism" and self-reliance often chafes against Judeo-Christian notions of solidarity with the poor, the scope of the economic crisis offers an historic opportunity to rebuild our economy to serve all Americans, not simply the privileged few.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that the next frontier of the civil rights movement required bearing witness to the scourge of poverty plaguing the richest nation in the world. His "Poor People's Campaign" brought together whites, blacks, and Latinos united in the belief that the moral measure of any society is found in how we treat the least among us. A culminating march on Washington calling for an economic "bill of rights" fizzled after King's assassination in 1968. People of faith will revive this unfinished legacy in April with the Mobilization to End Poverty, an event organized by Sojourners that will bring together Christians, Jews, and Muslims for lobbying days on Capitol Hill. President Obama, who pledged to help cut poverty in half within a decade, has been invited to speak at the event.

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that we can have democracy or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but not both. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now own 20 percent of total national income. Nearly 40 percent of U.S children grow up in poverty. These are moral and political failures unworthy of a great nation. Our country has always been strongest when we are united by a sense of common purpose and a commitment to shared prosperity. If the American dream is more than an empty slogan, it's long past time to make economic justice for all a reality.

John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. This article was originally published by Religion News Service. Reprinted with permission by the author.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: smfergus

03-25-2009 @ 11:48pm

It seems to me that the 'capitalists' aren't clamouring for the government to stay out of the market - viz. tax cuts, subsidies and incentives for which industry lobbies. The only complaints I hear from business are about regulation and other restrictions - often the only checks and balances there are. I don't see that 'capitalists' really want a free market.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 12:00am

I think this ignores the issue.

When Jesus said that "the poor you will always have with you," He was specifically speaking to His disciples in the context that "you can help them anytime you want, but you will not always have Me." To quote that verse in saying that it's hopeless to help the poor is a misuse of Scripture and nothing more than an excuse for lethargy. And that blasphemes God, frankly.

As for "[teaching] people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor," the people who were supposed to be doing that were out demonizing the poor. I recall being in a right-wing suburban Atlanta church nearly 30 years ago, and the only thing I heard in the pulpit was how "those people" were out to get us. And if you look at Christian TV and listen to Christian radio, you won't see a whole lot about that -- because they don't raise funds to keep them on the air (It's still generally about the "culture war").

And do you know why that is? Because richer Christians, who generally live in the suburbs, have no contact with those neighborhoods. They don't understand the challenges and dynamics of living with virtually nothing and thus have no idea of how to help. Besides, many people are poor because of political decisions made in the halls of power -- which isn't often addressed because it costs power. That's the bottom line here.

by: arthurpena

03-26-2009 @ 12:52am

Well, as far as the nature of the Bible, my first question would have to be:
which Bible are you referring to? The Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic,
or the Protestant?

As far as making a strong Biblical case for social justice--I'd say you
definitely have the stronger case than the capitalist crowd! You're
definitely right there.

by: jonabark

03-23-2009 @ 5:03am

Free markets are not the same as corporate capitalism, which is the actual prevailing system as opposed to a libertarian fantasy. Corporate capitalism creates deathless artificial entities that seek to externalize costs and maximize profits through an elaborate system of investments and frequently the procurement of government contracts. Capitalist enterprises have always either hired mercenaries or worked in tandem with Government armies. Its existence has always been tied to government support and political corruption.
You can in no way show that the wealth of western capitalism is a result of free markets and the rule of law. Huge amounts of the wealth are a direct result of theft, slavery, warfare, intimidation and lies.

Your theories have nothing to do with the real world.
Your description of socialism idoes not describe a single actual country apart from Korea where it is impossible to separate the centrally planned economy from the absolute rule of a murderous thug.

The Social democracies of Europe and South America, and the New Deal years are considered the best working models of socialism among the vast majority of the world's lefties.

Real world free market capitalists do not have a history of supporting the rule of law but of subverting law. Also your theory completely discounts the democratic process by which people legitimately protect themselves from criminal business practices.

What you end up with in the weird religion you have glommed onto is a world of saintly free market christians versus evil socialists trying to steal the hard earned money of honest people. This is religious nonsense having nothing to do with history or social, economic, cultural, spiritual or any other reality.

Did you actually , and in the real world vote for George Bush? John McCain? Or did you cast your vote for libertarian theorist Ron Paul?
Where is the reality here?

by: arthurpena

03-26-2009 @ 1:52am

I kind of "generally" agree in spirit with what you're saying about the free
market of ideas. However, Christianity has always been the dominant religion
here, and from the beginning there have been real Christian theocrats--the
kind that really don't want a secular state. So, if the country as a whole
has been more cautious when it comes to mixing Christianity in with the public
school system than it has been with other religions, I think this may be part
of the reason. No? But, like I said, I do think there are fanatical
secularists too....

Re God and the bible: Of course God and the Bible played a large part in the
founding of the country. Almost every single person involved came from a
Christian culture! That has nothing to do with how secular the nation was
intended to be. It was the culture, the language. Even deists used the
language of religion. But it is the MEANING of words that matters. It is what
they MEANT by the religious language that matters. Remember: to John Adams,
"Christian" meant a person who DID NOT believe in the divinity of Christ!

Re Intelligent Design in the Classroom. I don't think many secularists are
"afraid" of Intelligent Design. You have to respect something to be afraid of
it. I think most simply despise it and truly see it as nonsense. Me? I see
it as a possible hypothesis, not to be ruled out. And I think it would make a
very good lesson in the classroom. I have trouble seeing it as "scientific"
however, because if we are talking about God, by definition anything at all is
possible--he could have placed the fossils there as "tricks"; he could have
simply created the earth looking "old"; he could have done anything at all.
For science to work, one really needs to be able to rule things out, to pin
things down. God is rather hard to "pin down".

A truly supernatural God is, more or less by definition, outside the purview
of science, which is the search for NATURAL regularities, or "laws". I really
think it gets "iffy" if you try to include God in "science".

However, I think evidence for "intelligence" in the universe is rather clear:
I mean, you and I are here, aren't we? And we are part of the universe,
aren't we? Therefore the universe has within it the capacity for being
self-aware and intelligent, doesn't it? As so often happens, when one really
sits down and thinks about what we really mean when we say things, apparent
irreconcilable differences sometimes dissolve. Take "mind" and "matter". If
we say that the entire universe is matter, then we also have to say that
matter has within it the potential to manifest as mind; that is, mind must be
a property of matter...and the apparent contradiction disappears.

I think something like this might be happening with the evolution debate.
Science has, up to now, had a pretty "hard matter" view of things--matter as
solid, mindless, etc. But science itself is coming to re-think the nature of
matter, and more and more, something like "mind" is becoming part of the
equation. Thus, the evolution which we do, in fact, observe in nature and
through time, need not have wholly "mechanistic" explanations--that is,
completely "mindless" explanations. Perhaps something like "intelligence" is
at work, too. But it needn't be a supernatural intelligence. It could be a
property of the universe itself. There needn't be a "creator"; there really
could just be "the universe", intelligent, self-existent, eternal. After all,
"God", as scientific hypothesis, if the intelligent design people want to look
at it that way, explains nothing: it is just the box where we put what we
cannot explain. It just means: "unexplainable". And if God explains "the
beginning"--i.e. who or what started everything--scientifically speaking, we
are right back where we started from: for the next obvious, scientific
question would be: where did God come from? That's the nature of science:
it questions. It doesn't "believe".

God just isn't an appropriate scientific object of study. That's one reason
it is better not to mix religion and science. They are two different
languages, two different ways of thinking about and relating to the world. If
one tries to use the language of science to talk about God, one starts
sounding pretty absurd (like, "where did God come from?"); and if one tries to
use the language of religion to talk about science, one also soon starts
speaking gibberish (like God could have simply made all the waters from the
flood disappear with a snap of his fingers). I think they reflect two very
different ways our minds work: it's like poetry and discourse; or art and
math. Better not to mix them. Both suffer when we do. Anyway, that's how I
see it (and live it).

Certain kinds of evolution are indisputable. Species have, in fact, changed
over time. There is no reasonable debate possible on this. And natural
selection, genetic drift, sexual reproduction, and genetic mutation all play a
role in that evolution. This cannot be denied. This is certainly no mere
"hypothesis", and it isn't really jsut a "theory", either: this is fact.
Whether one species can become another species, or whether all biological
complexity is explainable solely on natural grounds, may be a bit more open to
question. I'm not sure.

However, I hope you haven't been reading people like Josh McDowell. I
remember reading something he wrote on evolution. It was laughable--he
revealed an abysmal ignorance of even basic High School Biology and Physice.
For example, he said that evolution couldn't be true because the law of
entropy (I think that's the law--my physics is getting rusty) proved that
complex things could not have arisen from simpler things, since the law says
that all things tend to "run down". Well, that's the layman's way of putting
the law anyway. But, apparently, Josh forgot about the sun. The law of
entropy only applies to a "closed system"--that is, a system with no outside
source of energy input. Like I said, Josh seems to have forgotten about the
sun.... The sun's energy makes the earth an open system--and the law of
entropy does not apply. Every time a bud breaks and a leaf starts to
photosythesize, the power of the sun to provide the energy for "growth", and
to overcome entropy, is demonstrated.

Anyway, I truly hope you are not reading the likes of Josh McDowell!

And, of course you warrant a response! You are clearly a sincere person.

by: hammerud

03-23-2009 @ 7:28am

I've always read it as as acknowledgement by Jesus of the sad reality
of the way things will be as long as fallen human nature is the
underlying dynamic. In light of that perspective, it certainly does
not blaspheme God. There will not be poverty during the millenium when
God's rule is the underlying dynamic. I'll check out a few
commentaries, but my expectation is that they will validate my
perspective.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:10pm

I guess the question is, what vehicle can be used to bring in economic justice? The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. Regardless of what system is implemented, human beings find ways to abuse the system. Maybe that is why Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us. I don't think socialism is the answer. Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible. I was looking thru some notes in one of my old Bibles and I noticed that I had written statistics that showed that most people killed during the last century were killed by their own governments. I also recall a recent book that showed people who identified themselves as liberals and progressives, those who yell the most about social justice, were far less generous in charitable contributions than those who identified themselves as conservative, and particularly Christian. My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor. If we kept God and the Bible in our educational system, and taught people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor, we would have encouraged a society where individuals would take much more responsibility for helping others. When the government takes from its citizens and then redistributes income, it undermines, if not kills, this positive dynamic. In a socialist system, you probably still would have 1 percent holding 20 percent of all the wealth. The difference is that everyone else would be poor.

by: arthurpena

03-26-2009 @ 2:28am

I totally agree that it is very important to look at context, and to argue
about it ("argue", obviously, in the sense of "discuss reasonably with logic
and evidence"). But that is not the whole story.

Have you noticed that this devotion to context is not very, shall we say,
"Biblical"?

Time and time again I've looked back to the OT "context" of New Testament
references to it, and time and time again I've found myself saying: "Huh?
Well, THAT's interesting...."

For example, there is some OT prophesy that Christians use to refer to Christ.
The only problem is that they leave out the part about "and God will chastise
him when he sins"; and elsewhere some alleged prophecy speaks of the "his
sons". Anyway, I'm just saying that "context" in the Bible is a very, very
tricky thing. The New Testament writers, like all human beings, were very
selective in their sensitivity to "context".

The New Testament writers take GREAT liberties when it comes to their use of
the OT: they feel free to literalize what was figurative, and to spiritualize
what was figurative; they paraphrase; they refer to books that are no longer
extant; they quote dubious Greek tranlations of Hebrew words; they do all
sorts of "messy" things. The whole shift from OT to NT is itself a lesson in
"paradigm" shift: unclean became clean, circumcision became unnecessary,
gentiles were "in"....all sorts of radical shifts in meaning and
interpretation. 2000 years tends to mute the rather shocking degree to which
age-old traditions and interpretations of scripture were transformed by
Christian thought.

However, Jewish use of Jewish scripture was not what modern post-scientific
revolution Christians are used to anyway. They always took (what to us would
seem) liberties with their scriptures: Scripture to them was a truly "living"
thing--to be discussed, interpreted,re-interpreted, argued over.

"Where I was going" with what I said was this: YOU determine what the words
of scripture "mean". It is YOUR mind that interprets them. Even YOU have to
determine what the relevant context is. Yes, not all interpretations are
"equal"; and the relative merits of different interpretations can be
reasonably discussed. But, then again, some of the new testament
interpretations of the old testament scripture are, well, pretty "out there".

Just beware: do not confuse your interpretations of what the words mean with
"what the words themselves say". For the words do not "say" anything.
Scripture does not "interpret itself". We interpret scripture.

And the way sacred scripture is used, even within the Bible itself, defies
normal "discursive" rules of interpretation. The Bible has OFTEN been used
more like poetry than science or history. Taking liberties with context is
fully biblical. It is very traditional.

by: Ngchen

03-20-2009 @ 8:25pm

I agree with you to a large extent. Generally, free markets are more (sometimes way more) efficient than government-run or mandated systems. That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore.

For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself. A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example.

With regard to keeping God in our educational system, I do hope that Sunday school is part of the education we're receiving. As for public schools and how "religious" they should be or are, I'd say that there is a thin line there that's fraught with peril, and picking a fight there is not wise. It's great, and IMO necessary, to educate our young about the various religions of the world, as well as the leading philosophies on life and civics, but going beyond gets dangerously close to state-sponsored indoctrination.

I am a big fan of hand-ups rather than hand-outs with regard to economic issues. Hand-ups tend to preserve the person's dignity, which hand-outs do not.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:29pm

With all due respect, that is a clearly incorrect interpretation based on the immediate context, which was about worshipping Him. In fact, while He was commending his disciples for wanting to "do the right thing," he was telling them that He should be the priority.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:59pm

From Matthew 26:

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9 "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

From Mark 14:

3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

6 "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

And from John 12:

1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Jesus in these passages is not clearly indicating that poverty is inevitable.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:58pm

Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree with the hand-up rather than
the hand-out thing. Unfortunately, going back to the issue of human
nature, I tend to be cynical about the motives of those in power. I
do not believe they are truly interested in the well-being of people.
They are interested in social stability and retaining their power; and
to retain power they promote hand-out legislation, in my opinion, to
buy votes. They have to know that "hand out" policies foster
dependency and will not result in real help for people. Huge sums
have been spent on social programs in the last 50 years in our
country, and we still have poverty. Also, I realize that my idea
about God and the Bible in the education system obviously couldn't fly
today, but there was a time when it could have flown. We missed that
opportunity. And it could have been done without forming a theocracy.
A Judeo-Christian frame of reference would have been good for social
order As Reagan sort of said, our freedom of religion, has become
freedom from religion. Right now secularism and godlessness have
become the religion of our educational system, and we wonder why our
society is becoming increasingly fractured.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 3:43am

I think you miss the point. The poster was using Jesus' words to insinuate that we shouldn't spend time on "justice for the poor," and I would suggest that such a misinterpretation has ramifications for the church's mission in general. My guess is that he is a dispensationalist, who believes that this world is basically irrelevant and that we should focus on the next -- a position I don't believe is supported by Scripture because it represents little more than evangelical escapism. God never said He would take us out of this world but promises that He will sustain us in it.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 3:10pm

If 100 people were stranded on a desert island then, regardless of the
starting ethic, "government" (probably a totalitarian warlord variety)
is what emerges. Were you trying to prove that capitalism is natural
(and therefore not a human institution) in some way that government is
not?

Your idea that people can "freely exchange... with no coercion or threat
of force" is a dream of utopia. Given the reality of human sin, this
won't happen short of the Kingdom of God. You seem to assume this free
exchange as a prerequisite for capitalism. But my realism is precisely
why I see the need for government to strongly constrain against the
tyranny that your brand of capitalism would cause.

You say that we have not had a free market system since 1914. I submit
that even before that we have not had a free market system. Part of
what the free market system caused was slavery. Our outlawing of
slavery is a repudiation of the tyranny that your brand of capitalism
would (and did) cause.

We need government (and God instituted government, according to the
Bible) because humans act so badly towards each other. Without
government constraint, capitalism would truly become hell on earth.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 3:47am

That still doesn't excuse what I consider your misuse of same. After all, fairly wealthy conservative Christians of the dispensational variety have used that phrase to say that "we really shouldn't focus on the poor very much." But God always intended the Church to be a reflection of Himself while it's here and not just be a vehicle to "save souls" -- and we can't do that while focused only on the hereafter.

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 5:50am

In any case, taxes even for defense would still be "coercion" (but you may not
have been the one who mentioned that...sorry, it's been a few days, and I've
lost track of who has said what).

I can't remember if I asked you before: how would you provide for the building
of roads, schools, bridges, the maintainence of national parks (but those
would probably be "socialist" to you...?), water systems, or hospitals, etc.
etc. without taxes? It's not a rhetorical question; I'm not assuming you have
no way to do it; I am really asking: how would you do it? I really am
curious. Would it all be run by private, and for-profit businesses?

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:18pm

"The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. ...human beings find ways to abuse the system. ... Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible."

EXACTLY the same could be said for Capitalism. It also is a human system. Human beings find ways to abuse the system. Capitalism, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible.

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 5:32am

Yes, I may have missed the point. Sometimes I get lost in the thread, and in
this case I may have thought I was responding to someone else! What you are
saying sounds quite reasonable. I think I was responding to the discussion as
a whole: going back and forth about what the Bible "really" says. It really
doesn't "say" anything. The whole history of Christianity demonstrates just
how open to interpretation it is: both slavery and the abolition of slavery
have been justified by using the Bible; both capitalism and socialism have
been justified by the Bible. Both gay rights and the death penalty for gays
have been justified by the Bible. I really would argue that "the Bible" (or,
rather, any of the 3 Bibles) is not an "objective authority", at least not the
way we usually think about "objective authority". It simply does not work as
an arbiter of truth, because people interpret it diffently. Have you read
"The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture", by Jim Hill and
Rand Cheadle (Anchor Books, ISBN 0-385-47695-7). It gives lots of good
examples of this kind of thing.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:08pm

"but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) "

If you think that every victim of starvation is a victim of captialism's inequities, you do not bring enough to the table to participate in an adult conversation on the topic.

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:23pm

[Let me hold a conversation with myself, so that it is rational.]

Right! Both government and capitalism are human institutions. So is the church. All three are falible and fallen. I hope that overriding power is withheld from each of them -- that they can offer checks and balances against each other.

The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power.

Some may quote statistics that most people who are killed are killed by their own governments -- but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) dwarfs any such statistics.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 9:26pm

More people prosper under capitalism than under socialism, even though
human beings abuse both systems. Capitalism facilitates human
initiative and whereas socialism undermines human initiative. The net
result of less initiative in a culture is more poverty.

by: hammerud

03-26-2009 @ 8:29am

In more than 40 years in the church and Christian community I never
have run into thinking along the lines of "we shouldn't focus on the
poor very much." We can always find extreme examples among any group.
I'm not sure what upsets you about this issue. Our church does what it
can for the poor.

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 7:44am

I agree. I don't think "monopolies" are "necessarily" bad.

Again, it's been a few days, and I've lost the thread a bit, but what I think
I was talking about was the way capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth in
fewer and fewer hands. Over time. And not without some ups and downs along
the way, or course. Real historical patterns, like real life, are rarely ever
"neat".

But, over time, I'd say that the pattern is pretty clear. I mean, isn't it?
Really? Do you see wealth, over time, becoming more evenly distributed, or
less evenly distributed...? The quantity of wealth as a whole may be
increasing for everyone over time (hardly anyone lives in caves anymore), but
it's DISTRIBUTION....? We have people earning 100 MILLION times more than the
average working man! Do you really think that reflects their REAL value in
any rational sense of the word "value"? Was Gate's individual, personal
contribution to his product really worth 100 MILLION times the worth of a
doctor who may have saved his life,or the teacher who may have taught him how
to read and write, or the workers without whom he couldn't produce a single
blessed thing? Or does it, rather, represent the way "money makes money", and
"privilege" really does come with wealth, and wealth leads to "connections",
which leads to more wealth....?

The system is not "natural"--it is HUMAN, and it is only one way in which
humans have come to create and distribute wealth; and it was, by and large,
designed by wealthy humans to protect and grow their wealth (it wasn't peasant
farmers or slaves or tradesmen who set up the banks; or who wrote the laws
that governed inheritance and land ownership; or who decided whether or not it
was legal to "bet" on the stock market; or who set up jails for debtors; or
who created "corporations" and all the laws that support them; or who
conquered foreign lands and took their gold and then "minted" coins....)

And here is the elephant in the living room of "capitalist democracy": wealth
ALWAYS brings with it political power.

That's why democratic mechanisms designed to check the power of wealth are
necessary. However, it is not sufficient to have mere "formal" mechanisms,
like "the vote", or "representatives". Because wealth doesn't have to
directly control the formal democratic mechanisms in order to effectively
control the democracy. It does it by "buying" those votes; by funding
lobbyists; by funding campaigns; by bribing; by all sorts of means. Wealth
ALWAYS translates directly into power, political power. That's one reason it
is called a "capitalist democracy" instead of a "workers democracy", because
the "capitalists" really do have effective control. Yes, the non-capitalist
class can organize either within the political system or from outside it, and
sometimes get concessions--but it is still the capitalists who really run the
show. How much input have working class folk really had in how Washington
"bails out" the economy? With the capitalist Democrats, it's a top-down
government approach, but, since it is government, there are at least some
democratic avenues people can pursue; with the capitalist Republicans, it
would be the "free market" approach, which translates into even MORE direct
political power given over to the wealthy.

Capitalism with a capital "K" ALWAYS tries to get the "populist" vote: it
always tries to stir up small business interests and people who identify with
the "self-made" man idea and to get them angry at "government" or "Big
Business Monopolies"...but it does so in its own interests. It tries to stir
up the passions of the "little guy", but it doesn't really offer him any real
power. It just tries to get the little guy to vote for things like
"de-regulation" so that more wealth and more power can flow even more quickly
into fewer and fewer hands.

Capitalism with a small "c" I'm all for: rewarding entrepreneurial spirit;
small businesses; allocation of resources according to demand; etc. etc. The
capitalism of Adam Smith was a capitalism designed to help the little guy, and
to put a check on the wealthy!
In fact, I think capitalism with a small "c" is quite compatible with the
spirit, if not the letter, of "socialism", believe it or not. However, the
free market really DOES lead to the accumulation and concentration of wealth
in fewer and fewer hands; and THAT leads to what amounts to capitalist
dictatorship (either with some semblance of democracy, as in our country, or
without it, as in Nazi Germany, or "USSR,Inc.").

And someone mentioned that capitalism is not a "system". (Again, sorry, I
don't know if it was you, but it seems related to things you've been saying,
so, here I go!) OF COURSE it's a system. It requires all sorts of laws and
social institutions for it to work. Bartering may not be a system; but
capitalism definitely IS. Legal institution of private property (not just
private property, but private ownership of the means of production--which is
not "natural", it is simply "one way" of doing things). Lending upon interest
has to be legalized (which according to ancient Hebrew law, it wasn't).
Banks. Currency. Prisons. All sorts of things that make it a "system".

And the "island" analogy that someone used: people left to themselves and all
that. Well, anthropology (not just Marxism) shows us quite clearly what
tribes look like: what happens, naturally, in the REAL world (not the
hypothetical world of individuals trading with each other, with no previous
history, with no family relationships, no envirnoment, no competing
groups--nothing "real" at all):

At first, humans seem to come together in primitive family-based communism,
with some degree of equality (not much to fight over anyway, in the jungle, or
on the plains), and sometimes with a fair degree of power for women (the ones
who had the power of birth); and, then, as productive power of humans grows,
and a surplus of goods is established, class systems arise, to dispose of (or
control) the surpluses: usually an exploiting class, and an exploited class
(in broad outlines). First tribal chiefs, ruling clans, that sort of thing;
then city states and empires with their ruling classes--and often slave-based
economies. Then feudalism: the king takes part of the peasant's labor,
though the peasant usually owns the land, and doesn't necessarily work "for"
the king, just part of the time--for the peasant can actully life off his
land, and is not dependent on the king for subsistence (just protection from
other kings!). Then, gradually, capitalism came on the scene: same
exploitation, but different form, and, generally, the worker is now TOTALLY
dependent upon the capitalist for a living (to really survive) because he
doesn't (usually) have his own land, or time to cultivate it, because he
pretty much has to work full time to buy what everything has become: a
commodity, an item produced for profit (as opposed to merely a "useful thing",
like food, a rake, clothes).

And present day capital didn't just "appear" on the scene: it DEVELOPED, and
ACCUMULATED, in real, concrete history...much of it through direct conquest of
most of the globe through colonialism, for one thing. Where do you think most
of the capital in the banks came from? Small business and entrepreneurs? I
don't think so. Try conquest, slavery, theft. That's where the really
massive amounts of gold came from, and the truly HUGE profits. Where do you
think the LAND came from--I mean the "private" land? Did Washington and
Jefferson and Raleigh get it from the Indians? NO. They got it--the "title"
to the land--from the British Crown, which stole the land. The European
powers simple stole the land. And from that land they derived their wealth.

Too many Americans think far to abstractly about where "wealth" actually comes
from. They go to the bank, take out a loan...but do they think about where
the capital behind that loan really came from? Well, it didn't grow on trees.
And MOST of it certainly did not come from small "c" capitalists, doing an
honest day's work.

I'm pretty sure that really is the Big Picture. All the talk of "capitalism",
small "c", in the abstract is just that: abstract. I don't think it stands
up well when placed in real, historical context. People can talk all they
want in the abstract: and capitalism does sound very good indeed, in the
abstract. But the wealth which capitalism concentrates in very few few hands
indeed will ALWAYS tend to undermine democracy.

I've wondered: have you ever really sat down with a Marxist, a well-educated,
well-informed Marxist (say, someone with the ISO, the International Sociliast
Organization, someone who really knows their stuff), and really talked about
what THEY mean by socialism and how they understand it? (By the way, just so
you know, it's not, wholly, my kind of socialism.)

I'm just saying: have you really taken "Marxism 101" from a Marxist--not a
capitalist, or capitalist sympathizer, or from an academic trying to be
"neutral"--but from a real Marxist?

Again, I am truly just asking: have you? Maybe you have!

Frankly, whenever I critically examine Marxism or talk to real Marxists (and I
am always very critical when I do), I come away very impressed indeed.
Marxism really does have great explanatory power. Almost too much power--I
suspect it has some faults that its strengths make very difficult (at least
for me) to see. And I'm no slouch. I was valedictorian of my High School
class, and near 4.0 GPA all the way through my Master's degree in theoretical
linguistics. And, yes, I have studied economics. And I'm no wet-behind the
ear school-boy who hasn't seen the world either. I lived abroad for years.
And I've worked and paid taxes for decades now.

Which is not to say I couldn't learn a lot more, or don't lack important kinds
of experience. I often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of economics, and
am not particularly savvy in the ways of the world.

But, frankly, I find that Marxism cuts (or at least seems to cut) through a
lot of the abstract bullshit of capitalist economics. A lot of capitalist
economics is, I believe, just smoke and mirrors. Things like strikes, and
revolutions, and imperialist incursions into foreign countries, and
imperialist wars, and military-industrial complexes, and 2 or 3 or 10 percent
of the population owning 30 or 40 or 60 percent of the wealth, and real class
struggles (when even the American government has turned its guns on its own
people)--things like this really, as they say, "cut to the chase" and reveal
at least some of the bare-bones realities of capitalism with a capital "K".
Real, historical capitalism. Not the capitalism of that very good and truly
compassionate--but seemingly historically naive--man Adam Smith. Not the small
"c" capitalism that really is a spiritual brother of socialism.

The Big "K" guys--they want the democratic socialists and the democratic
capitalists to see each other as enemies (and to misunderstand each other!),
instead of good people with possibly complementary, possibly somewhat
conflicting, but nevertheless essentially sincere and well-intentioned views
on how to create a better world. While we squabble, they continue to devour
the poor, bind the captive, and turn the widow and orphan out onto the
street.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 4:39pm

I understand the there is enough food produced right now on this planet
to satisfy the nutritional requirements of every human. No one needs to
starve to death based on total availability.

Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and
distribution.

Since there is enough food, but capitalism is preventing people's most
basic needs from being satisfied, then, YES, I would claim that every
victim of starvation is a victim of capitalism's inequalities.

I'm sorry that you think that my views are too childish to be worth
conversation. I take it that you will NOT reply, then. Thanks.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:54pm

"Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and

distribution."

In America, sorta. Elsewhere, no.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 5:36pm

I disagree with you. Let us end it there -- that we disagree.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 1:41pm

That's a predominant theme in much Christian broadcasting, if for no other reason than such apocalyptic thinking helps to raise funds. In fact, when it comes to the poor we're really stingy, with not just our money but also social resources -- my church is located and thus ministers in a poor neighborhood but also argues for justice so that they have a chance to change their own lives -- and we've taken heat for that.

by: BlueDeacon

03-27-2009 @ 12:32pm

Actually, absent the Holy Spirit one cannot interpret the Bible correctly anyway.

by: Ngchen

03-23-2009 @ 7:24pm

Can you please elaborate on the libertarian "rule of law" concept? I'm not familiar with it.

Now, when it comes to transportation, you're correct in that the road subsidies have been distortionary. Once something gets subsidized, it gains (perhaps unfairly) an advantage over its competitors. I bring up roads though b/c it is generally impractical to toll all roads, and be able to effectively collect the tolls (For one thing, there'd be toll booths on every block, and/or fences are needed to reduce people cutting in mid-way.) These added costs, not to mention having to stop to drop money in (another added cost), make tolling all roads impractical. Of course, when something is "subsidized," it's not really free; rather, someone else has decided to pay it or is being forced to pay it.

Is that situation ideal? No. And you're correct that the majority of things are better off being run by the capitalist system. The exceptions are few. But I will submit that they do exist.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:29am

"My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor."

I think you are very right, here. Some would counter that we don't have a nation of people who would do that willingly or sufficiently. So the solution is to take it from them by coercion (e.g. taxes) in the name of "justice"? Also, I think one of the most talented men in the country, and perhaps in our history, is wasting his charismatic talent and energy and ability to motivate and mobilize people. Instead, he is telling the nation to rely on him, his administration, and Congress to pass legislation to protect them, take care of them, and provide jobs for them. Yes, I'm talking about Obama. If there were any man able to motivate the country to a more "values centered economy," in such a way that more people would willingly give up money, resources, and perhaps energy, it would be Barack Obama. But alas, we have a president with a savior complex (every president is like this, so I'm not really critiquing him specifically).

by: hammerud

03-23-2009 @ 8:08pm

BlueDeacon -- I never really thought about it a whole lot, and I have
read it probably more than 100 times over the years, but I don't see
any error in what I was saying, and what I said definitely was not
blasphemous. The words "you have the poor with you always" always
struck me as the simple reality it has always been. I never read into
it that somehow it meant we were not to have concern for the poor, and
I never thought that Jesus was in any way intimating that. The
bottom line here is that I agree with what you are saying, but you
were making an erroneous inference about what I was thinkiing from the
limited statement I wrote. The MacArthur commentary I checked agrees
with what you say, and it clearly fits the context. It is interesting
to me that Jesus did expect people to draw inferences that at times
can extend beyond the immediate context in certain Scriptures, as long
as the inferences drawn tracked with the Scripture overall. For
example, in speaking to the Sadducees (who did not believe in the
resurrection) about the resurrection he pointed to the Scripture that
"God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The context of "God is
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," is not talking about the
resurrection, but Jesus used that Scripture to point out the reality
of the resurrection by stating that "God is not the God of the dead
but of the living." Also, when He asked the scribes and Pharisees
whose son Christ was (and they said He was the son of David), he
pointed to the Psalm that said, "the Lord said unto my Lord," and then
asked them why David would call Christ Lord if Christ was his son.
Notice that Christ was drawing an inference from a Scripture that was
not the direct context of the Scripture. I want you to realize that
I'm not throwing the door open here to all sorts of free-wheeling
interpretations, but I am pointing out from the two examples I just
gave that all truth derived from a particular verse is not necessarily
out of line even if it is not tied to the immediate context of the
verse -- as long as it tracks with the rest of Scripture.

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 8:20pm

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "government according to the Bible"? Please be specific.

For example, the Bible prohibits lending with interest, doesn't it?
It also institutes slavery, doesn't it?

You see where I am going with this... So, really, I am asking you to elaborate on your assertion that we should have a governement based on the Bible. What do you mean, exactly? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know way YOU mean by your assertion.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

Do you mean capitalism is a system created, or "setup," by humans? I would beg to differ. If 100 people were stranded on a desert island, and we all started with a "love thy neighbor" ethic, based on an "I won't initiate force against others" policy, capitalism is what emerges. When people freely exchange goods, services, and labor, with no coercion or threat of force by any one or group of others, a free market is the best route to prosperity.

One thing I think is drastically misunderstood is our system today. We have not had a free market system, have not had nearly a free market system since 1914, when the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress. When there is a central bank, there is not a free market, because a free market would not have result in a collapse of Fannie and Freddie; it would not have led to AIG's outrageous actions; it would not have led to so many drastic booms and busts. When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates, people borrow when the market would otherwise indicate (by higher interest rates) that it is a time to save. Natural free markets, whether they yield immediate results that we like or dislike, have a built-in mechanism that weeds out the bad capital and misallocation of resources. When federal manipulation and intervention occur in the name of "affordable housing" and "cheap money" (blame Bush and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and others), it inevitably leads to a bubble that must pop.

Not to be misunderstood, every free market capitalist would totally support the fundamental notion of rule of law. Madoff rightfully broke the laws and defrauded his clients. That is punishable as a crime. Others would face the same penalty.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

"That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore."

Can you point some out, please?

(addendum: sorry, I didn't read your whole comment. My apologies!)

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 8:39pm

I think you make a good point about distinguishing between "theocracy" and "a Judeo-Christian frame of reference". Theocracy is truly anathema to the essential character of this country. However, I think a "humanist" frame of reference would be identical to the one you are thinking of when you say "Judeo-Christian". I assume, for example, that you are not saying that any theological doctrines particular to either Judaism or Christianity should be officially promulgated. What I think you are saying is that the basic ethical code normally associated with Judeo-Christian teaching should be promulgated: essentially, love God (however your theology conceives of him), and love your neighbor,no? In this regard, it is important to remember that this nation never was intended to be an exclusively "Judeo-Christian" nation, not even in "frame of reference". The most influential founding fathers were mostly Deist, and were well aware of the existence of other non-Judeo-Christian teachings and ethical systems, and were, really, the "secular humanists" of their day. Our country was designed to be an ethical one, yes, but not in any sense specifically "Judeo-Christian". I'm pretty sure the historical record is clear in this respect.

Arthur
http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:55am

"For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself."

I think this would fall under the libertarian rule of law concept, where whoever is polluting is harming others, and that is to be part of rule of law.

"A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example."

To say we need infrastructure done by government simply because we cannot fathom how else it could be done, or if private solutions have been tried in the midst of a government monopoly over competition, is not valid support. You may indeed be correct, but anything done by government (which does not produce anything, but rather takes from others-either rightfully or wrongfully-who have saved and earned capital and resources) is then put in monopoly privileges. Monopolies are not good for economies, especially when they don't even make profits (which the road systems certainly do not do).

Also, you make the assumption (perhaps) based on what we see today. History may have been written differently if the market was the sole player in what happens with transportation. The Continental railroad, subsidized by the government, did not turn a profit. The northern railroad (can't recall the specific name) was done totally privately, was done much faster, and turned a profit in the first year (a very good record for any entrepreneur). Also keep in mind that since the govermment decided to build roads all over the whole country, every other mode of transportation, both current and future, had a monopoly-automobile transportation-to compete with. For one thing, we'd have less a problem with crowded roads (which is what happens with unlimited supply of a good or service: we get long lines); we may indeed have alternative modes of transportation, or perhaps better and more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation. When automakers saw an opportunity to put a car in every driveway because the government was building "free roads," what other result could we anticipate other than too many cars being built at the expense of creativity and entrepreneurship being the leader of what happens in an economy?

Bottom line is, capitalism is a result of free people making mutually-beneficial exchanges with each other, respecting each other's property, and not colluding together to initiate force against somebody who doesn't fit their mould.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 2:02am

Economist and historian Thomas E. Woods said on a radio show, "Everybody's greedy. What institutional framework can cope the best with this undeniable aspect of human nature?"

His answer? A free market, because when people respect each other and "want to improve your material well-being, how do you do that except by doing something that pleases your fellow man?"

The answer is, clearly, free trade and free association. Of course, protected by rule of law.

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 8:50pm

But: the free market also tends to concentrate wealth in increasingly fewer hands. Every economic crisis gives big fish the chance to swallow smaller fish, and after that crisis has passed, there are fewer big fish; and the big fish have gotten even bigger. This can all be done legally, without "colluding". It is, in fact, inevitable. Even without crisis, this is inevitable: normal competition itself leads to more succesful companies pushing out less successful companies. That may be a good thing in some ways, but it also means that--without democratic institutions that check the natural tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands--political power, too, will end up in those same hands. "Private" ownership of the means of production really must be counterbalanced by "public" checks on the accumulation and concentration of wealth and power which the free market inevitably leads to. Unless, of course, one were to argue with the idea that wealth buys power....???? Certainly, the Biblical prophetic tradition is clear on that score.....

Arthur
http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 8:51pm

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 8:53pm

I don't want to proof-text.
I think the tenor of the Bible speaks to God ordaining government.

Romans 13 is an example.

Also, Paul say elsewhere the God is a God of order, not of chaos. He is
speaking about order in the church, but the principle applies.

The "Kingdom of God" is a political phrase. By using it, Jesus was
endorsing the idea that there should be a government.

To organize the Israelites after the exodus, God told Moses to appoint
judges of the 100s and the 1000s. I.e. God organized the polity by
which the Israelites were governed.

I thing God recognizes that anarchy is hellish. God recognizes that
political order is necessary to organize human affairs. The degree to
which 'good' government is restrictive is to be negotiated, but I don't
see the Bible advocating complete anarchy anywhere.

Of your two examples:

1. prohibiting lending with interest -- maybe if we took this more
seriously, we'd be nearer the Kingdom of God. But I am not saying yea
or nay.

2. slavery -- long dissertations are written on this. My short,
incomplete answer is that the whole tenor of the Bible does not
'institute slavery', even though there may be a text or two that seems
to acquiesce to it temporarily.

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 9:06pm

I, too, am not enthusiastic about "coerced charity". And I am a "socialist"! Well, an "unconvinced" socialist.... (I really think there are good arguments for both a certain degree of capitalism, and a certain degree of relatively de-centralized socialism). I much prefer charity to be from free person to free person.

Taxes, however, are not "coercion", any more than any other sort of social contract (e.g. private property) is "coercion". It is a social contract that recognizes that we have certain common needs, and that some of these needs require money. Individual liberty cannot be limitless. If that is "coercion", so be it.

That is not to say that "all" the taxes we pay now are about "common needs"!!!!! Far from it. Libertarian critiques on this score are very welcom indeed.

Also, I totally agree with the "savior complex" thing. Not specifically about Obama (I think he's about the best thing that could have happened to this country...given the choices; and I think he IS very, very good--intelligent, compassionate, informed, etc.), though I think any person in that position must be tempted to let the power get to his head. What I wholly disapprove of is the way the Presidency itself has become almost a personality cult--not only have the executive powers grown alarmingly over time, but the Presidency has increasingly become essential to our nation's self-identity, our nations mood, our nations sense of purpose. In my opinion, he should just be a public servant, doing a particular kind of job, and should not be looked to for either "inspiration" or "leadership"...well, at least not to the degree the presidency has taken on this kind of cheer-leading role. He should not be a symbol of our nation; he should be a civil servant.

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 9:16pm

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 5:50am

In any case, taxes even for defense would still be "coercion" (but you may not
have been the one who mentioned that...sorry, it's been a few days, and I've
lost track of who has said what).

I can't remember if I asked you before: how would you provide for the building
of roads, schools, bridges, the maintainence of national parks (but those
would probably be "socialist" to you...?), water systems, or hospitals, etc.
etc. without taxes? It's not a rhetorical question; I'm not assuming you have
no way to do it; I am really asking: how would you do it? I really am
curious. Would it all be run by private, and for-profit businesses?

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 9:23pm

I'm still not sure why anything you say about what the Bible says about government is in any way uniquely "Biblical"? Perhaps you didn't mean "uniquely" Biblical at all. EVERY culture and EVERY sacred tradiction has advocated general order, haven't they? You certainly do not sound like a right-winger, judging by things you've written: but when you use phrases like "government according to the Bible", you play right into the hands of the right wing. See what I mean?

by: hammerud

03-21-2009 @ 11:39am

I totally agree with you. The current administration even wants to
reduce deductions for charitable contributions, my main deduction.
Why would they do that??? Here is a quote from an anonymous
contributor to another blog: "They believe if it isn't the government
doing the giving, then it shoudn't be given at all. They really do.
It's not about helping the needy, it's about power. People giving
charitably does not increase their power and they have no control over
it. If they can switch the donators from the individuals to the
government, then they get more power."

We need to be really careful here. This administration is
implementing the biggest power grab in our history, and once they gain
control of the Supreme Court, watch out.

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 5:32am

Yes, I may have missed the point. Sometimes I get lost in the thread, and in
this case I may have thought I was responding to someone else! What you are
saying sounds quite reasonable. I think I was responding to the discussion as
a whole: going back and forth about what the Bible "really" says. It really
doesn't "say" anything. The whole history of Christianity demonstrates just
how open to interpretation it is: both slavery and the abolition of slavery
have been justified by using the Bible; both capitalism and socialism have
been justified by the Bible. Both gay rights and the death penalty for gays
have been justified by the Bible. I really would argue that "the Bible" (or,
rather, any of the 3 Bibles) is not an "objective authority", at least not the
way we usually think about "objective authority". It simply does not work as
an arbiter of truth, because people interpret it diffently. Have you read
"The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture", by Jim Hill and
Rand Cheadle (Anchor Books, ISBN 0-385-47695-7). It gives lots of good
examples of this kind of thing.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 11:58am

"The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power."

I would love an explanation as to how capitalism is an "institution." I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. Perhaps a "system," but even that word I find misleading because it implies that there was a choice to do System A, B, or C, and we chose C because that was our favorite or desired one. I would see "C" as the natural result of free people making free exchanges without initiation of force by any person or group.

by: arthurpena

03-27-2009 @ 7:44am

I agree. I don't think "monopolies" are "necessarily" bad.

Again, it's been a few days, and I've lost the thread a bit, but what I think
I was talking about was the way capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth in
fewer and fewer hands. Over time. And not without some ups and downs along
the way, or course. Real historical patterns, like real life, are rarely ever
"neat".

But, over time, I'd say that the pattern is pretty clear. I mean, isn't it?
Really? Do you see wealth, over time, becoming more evenly distributed, or
less evenly distributed...? The quantity of wealth as a whole may be
increasing for everyone over time (hardly anyone lives in caves anymore), but
it's DISTRIBUTION....? We have people earning 100 MILLION times more than the
average working man! Do you really think that reflects their REAL value in
any rational sense of the word "value"? Was Gate's individual, personal
contribution to his product really worth 100 MILLION times the worth of a
doctor who may have saved his life,or the teacher who may have taught him how
to read and write, or the workers without whom he couldn't produce a single
blessed thing? Or does it, rather, represent the way "money makes money", and
"privilege" really does come with wealth, and wealth leads to "connections",
which leads to more wealth....?

The system is not "natural"--it is HUMAN, and it is only one way in which
humans have come to create and distribute wealth; and it was, by and large,
designed by wealthy humans to protect and grow their wealth (it wasn't peasant
farmers or slaves or tradesmen who set up the banks; or who wrote the laws
that governed inheritance and land ownership; or who decided whether or not it
was legal to "bet" on the stock market; or who set up jails for debtors; or
who created "corporations" and all the laws that support them; or who
conquered foreign lands and took their gold and then "minted" coins....)

And here is the elephant in the living room of "capitalist democracy": wealth
ALWAYS brings with it political power.

That's why democratic mechanisms designed to check the power of wealth are
necessary. However, it is not sufficient to have mere "formal" mechanisms,
like "the vote", or "representatives". Because wealth doesn't have to
directly control the formal democratic mechanisms in order to effectively
control the democracy. It does it by "buying" those votes; by funding
lobbyists; by funding campaigns; by bribing; by all sorts of means. Wealth
ALWAYS translates directly into power, political power. That's one reason it
is called a "capitalist democracy" instead of a "workers democracy", because
the "capitalists" really do have effective control. Yes, the non-capitalist
class can organize either within the political system or from outside it, and
sometimes get concessions--but it is still the capitalists who really run the
show. How much input have working class folk really had in how Washington
"bails out" the economy? With the capitalist Democrats, it's a top-down
government approach, but, since it is government, there are at least some
democratic avenues people can pursue; with the capitalist Republicans, it
would be the "free market" approach, which translates into even MORE direct
political power given over to the wealthy.

Capitalism with a capital "K" ALWAYS tries to get the "populist" vote: it
always tries to stir up small business interests and people who identify with
the "self-made" man idea and to get them angry at "government" or "Big
Business Monopolies"...but it does so in its own interests. It tries to stir
up the passions of the "little guy", but it doesn't really offer him any real
power. It just tries to get the little guy to vote for things like
"de-regulation" so that more wealth and more power can flow even more quickly
into fewer and fewer hands.

Capitalism with a small "c" I'm all for: rewarding entrepreneurial spirit;
small businesses; allocation of resources according to demand; etc. etc. The
capitalism of Adam Smith was a capitalism designed to help the little guy, and
to put a check on the wealthy!
In fact, I think capitalism with a small "c" is quite compatible with the
spirit, if not the letter, of "socialism", believe it or not. However, the
free market really DOES lead to the accumulation and concentration of wealth
in fewer and fewer hands; and THAT leads to what amounts to capitalist
dictatorship (either with some semblance of democracy, as in our country, or
without it, as in Nazi Germany, or "USSR,Inc.").

And someone mentioned that capitalism is not a "system". (Again, sorry, I
don't know if it was you, but it seems related to things you've been saying,
so, here I go!) OF COURSE it's a system. It requires all sorts of laws and
social institutions for it to work. Bartering may not be a system; but
capitalism definitely IS. Legal institution of private property (not just
private property, but private ownership of the means of production--which is
not "natural", it is simply "one way" of doing things). Lending upon interest
has to be legalized (which according to ancient Hebrew law, it wasn't).
Banks. Currency. Prisons. All sorts of things that make it a "system".

And the "island" analogy that someone used: people left to themselves and all
that. Well, anthropology (not just Marxism) shows us quite clearly what
tribes look like: what happens, naturally, in the REAL world (not the
hypothetical world of individuals trading with each other, with no previous
history, with no family relationships, no envirnoment, no competing
groups--nothing "real" at all):

At first, humans seem to come together in primitive family-based communism,
with some degree of equality (not much to fight over anyway, in the jungle, or
on the plains), and sometimes with a fair degree of power for women (the ones
who had the power of birth); and, then, as productive power of humans grows,
and a surplus of goods is established, class systems arise, to dispose of (or
control) the surpluses: usually an exploiting class, and an exploited class
(in broad outlines). First tribal chiefs, ruling clans, that sort of thing;
then city states and empires with their ruling classes--and often slave-based
economies. Then feudalism: the king takes part of the peasant's labor,
though the peasant usually owns the land, and doesn't necessarily work "for"
the king, just part of the time--for the peasant can actully life off his
land, and is not dependent on the king for subsistence (just protection from
other kings!). Then, gradually, capitalism came on the scene: same
exploitation, but different form, and, generally, the worker is now TOTALLY
dependent upon the capitalist for a living (to really survive) because he
doesn't (usually) have his own land, or time to cultivate it, because he
pretty much has to work full time to buy what everything has become: a
commodity, an item produced for profit (as opposed to merely a "useful thing",
like food, a rake, clothes).

And present day capital didn't just "appear" on the scene: it DEVELOPED, and
ACCUMULATED, in real, concrete history...much of it through direct conquest of
most of the globe through colonialism, for one thing. Where do you think most
of the capital in the banks came from? Small business and entrepreneurs? I
don't think so. Try conquest, slavery, theft. That's where the really
massive amounts of gold came from, and the truly HUGE profits. Where do you
think the LAND came from--I mean the "private" land? Did Washington and
Jefferson and Raleigh get it from the Indians? NO. They got it--the "title"
to the land--from the British Crown, which stole the land. The European
powers simple stole the land. And from that land they derived their wealth.

Too many Americans think far to abstractly about where "wealth" actually comes
from. They go to the bank, take out a loan...but do they think about where
the capital behind that loan really came from? Well, it didn't grow on trees.
And MOST of it certainly did not come from small "c" capitalists, doing an
honest day's work.

I'm pretty sure that really is the Big Picture. All the talk of "capitalism",
small "c", in the abstract is just that: abstract. I don't think it stands
up well when placed in real, historical context. People can talk all they
want in the abstract: and capitalism does sound very good indeed, in the
abstract. But the wealth which capitalism concentrates in very few few hands
indeed will ALWAYS tend to undermine democracy.

I've wondered: have you ever really sat down with a Marxist, a well-educated,
well-informed Marxist (say, someone with the ISO, the International Sociliast
Organization, someone who really knows their stuff), and really talked about
what THEY mean by socialism and how they understand it? (By the way, just so
you know, it's not, wholly, my kind of socialism.)

I'm just saying: have you really taken "Marxism 101" from a Marxist--not a
capitalist, or capitalist sympathizer, or from an academic trying to be
"neutral"--but from a real Marxist?

Again, I am truly just asking: have you? Maybe you have!

Frankly, whenever I critically examine Marxism or talk to real Marxists (and I
am always very critical when I do), I come away very impressed indeed.
Marxism really does have great explanatory power. Almost too much power--I
suspect it has some faults that its strengths make very difficult (at least
for me) to see. And I'm no slouch. I was valedictorian of my High School
class, and near 4.0 GPA all the way through my Master's degree in theoretical
linguistics. And, yes, I have studied economics. And I'm no wet-behind the
ear school-boy who hasn't seen the world either. I lived abroad for years.
And I've worked and paid taxes for decades now.

Which is not to say I couldn't learn a lot more, or don't lack important kinds
of experience. I often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of economics, and
am not particularly savvy in the ways of the world.

But, frankly, I find that Marxism cuts (or at least seems to cut) through a
lot of the abstract bullshit of capitalist economics. A lot of capitalist
economics is, I believe, just smoke and mirrors. Things like strikes, and
revolutions, and imperialist incursions into foreign countries, and
imperialist wars, and military-industrial complexes, and 2 or 3 or 10 percent
of the population owning 30 or 40 or 60 percent of the wealth, and real class
struggles (when even the American government has turned its guns on its own
people)--things like this really, as they say, "cut to the chase" and reveal
at least some of the bare-bones realities of capitalism with a capital "K".
Real, historical capitalism. Not the capitalism of that very good and truly
compassionate--but seemingly historically naive--man Adam Smith. Not the small
"c" capitalism that really is a spiritual brother of socialism.

The Big "K" guys--they want the democratic socialists and the democratic
capitalists to see each other as enemies (and to misunderstand each other!),
instead of good people with possibly complementary, possibly somewhat
conflicting, but nevertheless essentially sincere and well-intentioned views
on how to create a better world. While we squabble, they continue to devour
the poor, bind the captive, and turn the widow and orphan out onto the
street.

by: arthurpena

03-23-2009 @ 9:31pm

This is a perfect example of how written texts only provide the illusion of "authority". The words on paper only MEAN something once they have been interpreted. And human interpretations ALWAYS differ.

Read Isaiah 44. My own non-literal interpretation of the words written there (notice, I said MY OWN INTERPRETATION): they are bowing down to a "block of wood"....to words on PAPER; and ascribing to God their own interpretations of those words. But words on paper are "mute"; they have no mind of their own; they do not, really, "say" anything. It is WE who read the words, and it is WE who SAY what they MEAN.

Who is the blasphemer...????? Isn't he the one who says that he speaks for God? that is, the one who reads the text and then says, "The Bible says....." "God says........"

Arthur
http://wordsandtheword.wordpress.com/

by: neuro_nurse

03-23-2009 @ 9:31pm

"Taxes, however, are not "coercion", any more than any other sort of social contract (e.g. private property) is "coercion"

Ha! Where have I heard that one before?

You can talk yourself blue in the face, but you'll just end up in a circular argument with xfree9 on this point.

Good luck!

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:10pm

I guess the question is, what vehicle can be used to bring in economic justice? The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. Regardless of what system is implemented, human beings find ways to abuse the system. Maybe that is why Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us. I don't think socialism is the answer. Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible. I was looking thru some notes in one of my old Bibles and I noticed that I had written statistics that showed that most people killed during the last century were killed by their own governments. I also recall a recent book that showed people who identified themselves as liberals and progressives, those who yell the most about social justice, were far less generous in charitable contributions than those who identified themselves as conservative, and particularly Christian. My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor. If we kept God and the Bible in our educational system, and taught people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor, we would have encouraged a society where individuals would take much more responsibility for helping others. When the government takes from its citizens and then redistributes income, it undermines, if not kills, this positive dynamic. In a socialist system, you probably still would have 1 percent holding 20 percent of all the wealth. The difference is that everyone else would be poor.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:10pm

I guess the question is, what vehicle can be used to bring in economic justice? The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. Regardless of what system is implemented, human beings find ways to abuse the system. Maybe that is why Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us. I don't think socialism is the answer. Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible. I was looking thru some notes in one of my old Bibles and I noticed that I had written statistics that showed that most people killed during the last century were killed by their own governments. I also recall a recent book that showed people who identified themselves as liberals and progressives, those who yell the most about social justice, were far less generous in charitable contributions than those who identified themselves as conservative, and particularly Christian. My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor. If we kept God and the Bible in our educational system, and taught people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor, we would have encouraged a society where individuals would take much more responsibility for helping others. When the government takes from its citizens and then redistributes income, it undermines, if not kills, this positive dynamic. In a socialist system, you probably still would have 1 percent holding 20 percent of all the wealth. The difference is that everyone else would be poor.

by: Ngchen

03-20-2009 @ 8:25pm

I agree with you to a large extent. Generally, free markets are more (sometimes way more) efficient than government-run or mandated systems. That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore.

For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself. A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example.

With regard to keeping God in our educational system, I do hope that Sunday school is part of the education we're receiving. As for public schools and how "religious" they should be or are, I'd say that there is a thin line there that's fraught with peril, and picking a fight there is not wise. It's great, and IMO necessary, to educate our young about the various religions of the world, as well as the leading philosophies on life and civics, but going beyond gets dangerously close to state-sponsored indoctrination.

I am a big fan of hand-ups rather than hand-outs with regard to economic issues. Hand-ups tend to preserve the person's dignity, which hand-outs do not.

by: Ngchen

03-20-2009 @ 8:25pm

I agree with you to a large extent. Generally, free markets are more (sometimes way more) efficient than government-run or mandated systems. That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore.

For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself. A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example.

With regard to keeping God in our educational system, I do hope that Sunday school is part of the education we're receiving. As for public schools and how "religious" they should be or are, I'd say that there is a thin line there that's fraught with peril, and picking a fight there is not wise. It's great, and IMO necessary, to educate our young about the various religions of the world, as well as the leading philosophies on life and civics, but going beyond gets dangerously close to state-sponsored indoctrination.

I am a big fan of hand-ups rather than hand-outs with regard to economic issues. Hand-ups tend to preserve the person's dignity, which hand-outs do not.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:58pm

Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree with the hand-up rather than
the hand-out thing. Unfortunately, going back to the issue of human
nature, I tend to be cynical about the motives of those in power. I
do not believe they are truly interested in the well-being of people.
They are interested in social stability and retaining their power; and
to retain power they promote hand-out legislation, in my opinion, to
buy votes. They have to know that "hand out" policies foster
dependency and will not result in real help for people. Huge sums
have been spent on social programs in the last 50 years in our
country, and we still have poverty. Also, I realize that my idea
about God and the Bible in the education system obviously couldn't fly
today, but there was a time when it could have flown. We missed that
opportunity. And it could have been done without forming a theocracy.
A Judeo-Christian frame of reference would have been good for social
order As Reagan sort of said, our freedom of religion, has become
freedom from religion. Right now secularism and godlessness have
become the religion of our educational system, and we wonder why our
society is becoming increasingly fractured.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 8:58pm

Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree with the hand-up rather than
the hand-out thing. Unfortunately, going back to the issue of human
nature, I tend to be cynical about the motives of those in power. I
do not believe they are truly interested in the well-being of people.
They are interested in social stability and retaining their power; and
to retain power they promote hand-out legislation, in my opinion, to
buy votes. They have to know that "hand out" policies foster
dependency and will not result in real help for people. Huge sums
have been spent on social programs in the last 50 years in our
country, and we still have poverty. Also, I realize that my idea
about God and the Bible in the education system obviously couldn't fly
today, but there was a time when it could have flown. We missed that
opportunity. And it could have been done without forming a theocracy.
A Judeo-Christian frame of reference would have been good for social
order As Reagan sort of said, our freedom of religion, has become
freedom from religion. Right now secularism and godlessness have
become the religion of our educational system, and we wonder why our
society is becoming increasingly fractured.

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:18pm

"The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. ...human beings find ways to abuse the system. ... Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible."

EXACTLY the same could be said for Capitalism. It also is a human system. Human beings find ways to abuse the system. Capitalism, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible.

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:18pm

"The problem with everything that is tried is human nature. ...human beings find ways to abuse the system. ... Government, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible."

EXACTLY the same could be said for Capitalism. It also is a human system. Human beings find ways to abuse the system. Capitalism, in my opinion, should be limited as much as possible.

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:23pm

[Let me hold a conversation with myself, so that it is rational.]

Right! Both government and capitalism are human institutions. So is the church. All three are falible and fallen. I hope that overriding power is withheld from each of them -- that they can offer checks and balances against each other.

The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power.

Some may quote statistics that most people who are killed are killed by their own governments -- but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) dwarfs any such statistics.

by: Stein

03-20-2009 @ 9:23pm

[Let me hold a conversation with myself, so that it is rational.]

Right! Both government and capitalism are human institutions. So is the church. All three are falible and fallen. I hope that overriding power is withheld from each of them -- that they can offer checks and balances against each other.

The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power.

Some may quote statistics that most people who are killed are killed by their own governments -- but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) dwarfs any such statistics.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 9:26pm

More people prosper under capitalism than under socialism, even though
human beings abuse both systems. Capitalism facilitates human
initiative and whereas socialism undermines human initiative. The net
result of less initiative in a culture is more poverty.

by: hammerud

03-20-2009 @ 9:26pm

More people prosper under capitalism than under socialism, even though
human beings abuse both systems. Capitalism facilitates human
initiative and whereas socialism undermines human initiative. The net
result of less initiative in a culture is more poverty.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:29am

"My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor."

I think you are very right, here. Some would counter that we don't have a nation of people who would do that willingly or sufficiently. So the solution is to take it from them by coercion (e.g. taxes) in the name of "justice"? Also, I think one of the most talented men in the country, and perhaps in our history, is wasting his charismatic talent and energy and ability to motivate and mobilize people. Instead, he is telling the nation to rely on him, his administration, and Congress to pass legislation to protect them, take care of them, and provide jobs for them. Yes, I'm talking about Obama. If there were any man able to motivate the country to a more "values centered economy," in such a way that more people would willingly give up money, resources, and perhaps energy, it would be Barack Obama. But alas, we have a president with a savior complex (every president is like this, so I'm not really critiquing him specifically).

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:29am

"My own opinion is that I should be allowed to keep most of my money so I can decide where to pass it out to help the poor."

I think you are very right, here. Some would counter that we don't have a nation of people who would do that willingly or sufficiently. So the solution is to take it from them by coercion (e.g. taxes) in the name of "justice"? Also, I think one of the most talented men in the country, and perhaps in our history, is wasting his charismatic talent and energy and ability to motivate and mobilize people. Instead, he is telling the nation to rely on him, his administration, and Congress to pass legislation to protect them, take care of them, and provide jobs for them. Yes, I'm talking about Obama. If there were any man able to motivate the country to a more "values centered economy," in such a way that more people would willingly give up money, resources, and perhaps energy, it would be Barack Obama. But alas, we have a president with a savior complex (every president is like this, so I'm not really critiquing him specifically).

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

Do you mean capitalism is a system created, or "setup," by humans? I would beg to differ. If 100 people were stranded on a desert island, and we all started with a "love thy neighbor" ethic, based on an "I won't initiate force against others" policy, capitalism is what emerges. When people freely exchange goods, services, and labor, with no coercion or threat of force by any one or group of others, a free market is the best route to prosperity.

One thing I think is drastically misunderstood is our system today. We have not had a free market system, have not had nearly a free market system since 1914, when the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress. When there is a central bank, there is not a free market, because a free market would not have result in a collapse of Fannie and Freddie; it would not have led to AIG's outrageous actions; it would not have led to so many drastic booms and busts. When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates, people borrow when the market would otherwise indicate (by higher interest rates) that it is a time to save. Natural free markets, whether they yield immediate results that we like or dislike, have a built-in mechanism that weeds out the bad capital and misallocation of resources. When federal manipulation and intervention occur in the name of "affordable housing" and "cheap money" (blame Bush and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and others), it inevitably leads to a bubble that must pop.

Not to be misunderstood, every free market capitalist would totally support the fundamental notion of rule of law. Madoff rightfully broke the laws and defrauded his clients. That is punishable as a crime. Others would face the same penalty.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

Do you mean capitalism is a system created, or "setup," by humans? I would beg to differ. If 100 people were stranded on a desert island, and we all started with a "love thy neighbor" ethic, based on an "I won't initiate force against others" policy, capitalism is what emerges. When people freely exchange goods, services, and labor, with no coercion or threat of force by any one or group of others, a free market is the best route to prosperity.

One thing I think is drastically misunderstood is our system today. We have not had a free market system, have not had nearly a free market system since 1914, when the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress. When there is a central bank, there is not a free market, because a free market would not have result in a collapse of Fannie and Freddie; it would not have led to AIG's outrageous actions; it would not have led to so many drastic booms and busts. When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates, people borrow when the market would otherwise indicate (by higher interest rates) that it is a time to save. Natural free markets, whether they yield immediate results that we like or dislike, have a built-in mechanism that weeds out the bad capital and misallocation of resources. When federal manipulation and intervention occur in the name of "affordable housing" and "cheap money" (blame Bush and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and others), it inevitably leads to a bubble that must pop.

Not to be misunderstood, every free market capitalist would totally support the fundamental notion of rule of law. Madoff rightfully broke the laws and defrauded his clients. That is punishable as a crime. Others would face the same penalty.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

"That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore."

Can you point some out, please?

(addendum: sorry, I didn't read your whole comment. My apologies!)

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:35am

"That being said, there are examples of market failure which we shouldn't ignore."

Can you point some out, please?

(addendum: sorry, I didn't read your whole comment. My apologies!)

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:55am

"For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself."

I think this would fall under the libertarian rule of law concept, where whoever is polluting is harming others, and that is to be part of rule of law.

"A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example."

To say we need infrastructure done by government simply because we cannot fathom how else it could be done, or if private solutions have been tried in the midst of a government monopoly over competition, is not valid support. You may indeed be correct, but anything done by government (which does not produce anything, but rather takes from others-either rightfully or wrongfully-who have saved and earned capital and resources) is then put in monopoly privileges. Monopolies are not good for economies, especially when they don't even make profits (which the road systems certainly do not do).

Also, you make the assumption (perhaps) based on what we see today. History may have been written differently if the market was the sole player in what happens with transportation. The Continental railroad, subsidized by the government, did not turn a profit. The northern railroad (can't recall the specific name) was done totally privately, was done much faster, and turned a profit in the first year (a very good record for any entrepreneur). Also keep in mind that since the govermment decided to build roads all over the whole country, every other mode of transportation, both current and future, had a monopoly-automobile transportation-to compete with. For one thing, we'd have less a problem with crowded roads (which is what happens with unlimited supply of a good or service: we get long lines); we may indeed have alternative modes of transportation, or perhaps better and more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation. When automakers saw an opportunity to put a car in every driveway because the government was building "free roads," what other result could we anticipate other than too many cars being built at the expense of creativity and entrepreneurship being the leader of what happens in an economy?

Bottom line is, capitalism is a result of free people making mutually-beneficial exchanges with each other, respecting each other's property, and not colluding together to initiate force against somebody who doesn't fit their mould.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 1:55am

"For instance, take the classic example of pollution. The air in some sense belongs to "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time, and it's unfair for a factory to be allowed to pollute it to everyone's detriment (passing the cost to everyone), while keeping 100% of the profits itself."

I think this would fall under the libertarian rule of law concept, where whoever is polluting is harming others, and that is to be part of rule of law.

"A second example would be certain types of infrastructure. Without government building the large roads, chances are they'd never be built since either (1) no one has that kind of money, and/or (2) the cost of collecting the tolls to offset the price is excessive. Finally, there are situations where there is a large asymmetry of information, making a truly free market impractical, with insurance being but one example."

To say we need infrastructure done by government simply because we cannot fathom how else it could be done, or if private solutions have been tried in the midst of a government monopoly over competition, is not valid support. You may indeed be correct, but anything done by government (which does not produce anything, but rather takes from others-either rightfully or wrongfully-who have saved and earned capital and resources) is then put in monopoly privileges. Monopolies are not good for economies, especially when they don't even make profits (which the road systems certainly do not do).

Also, you make the assumption (perhaps) based on what we see today. History may have been written differently if the market was the sole player in what happens with transportation. The Continental railroad, subsidized by the government, did not turn a profit. The northern railroad (can't recall the specific name) was done totally privately, was done much faster, and turned a profit in the first year (a very good record for any entrepreneur). Also keep in mind that since the govermment decided to build roads all over the whole country, every other mode of transportation, both current and future, had a monopoly-automobile transportation-to compete with. For one thing, we'd have less a problem with crowded roads (which is what happens with unlimited supply of a good or service: we get long lines); we may indeed have alternative modes of transportation, or perhaps better and more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation. When automakers saw an opportunity to put a car in every driveway because the government was building "free roads," what other result could we anticipate other than too many cars being built at the expense of creativity and entrepreneurship being the leader of what happens in an economy?

Bottom line is, capitalism is a result of free people making mutually-beneficial exchanges with each other, respecting each other's property, and not colluding together to initiate force against somebody who doesn't fit their mould.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 2:02am

Economist and historian Thomas E. Woods said on a radio show, "Everybody's greedy. What institutional framework can cope the best with this undeniable aspect of human nature?"

His answer? A free market, because when people respect each other and "want to improve your material well-being, how do you do that except by doing something that pleases your fellow man?"

The answer is, clearly, free trade and free association. Of course, protected by rule of law.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 2:02am

Economist and historian Thomas E. Woods said on a radio show, "Everybody's greedy. What institutional framework can cope the best with this undeniable aspect of human nature?"

His answer? A free market, because when people respect each other and "want to improve your material well-being, how do you do that except by doing something that pleases your fellow man?"

The answer is, clearly, free trade and free association. Of course, protected by rule of law.

by: hammerud

03-21-2009 @ 11:39am

I totally agree with you. The current administration even wants to
reduce deductions for charitable contributions, my main deduction.
Why would they do that??? Here is a quote from an anonymous
contributor to another blog: "They believe if it isn't the government
doing the giving, then it shoudn't be given at all. They really do.
It's not about helping the needy, it's about power. People giving
charitably does not increase their power and they have no control over
it. If they can switch the donators from the individuals to the
government, then they get more power."

We need to be really careful here. This administration is
implementing the biggest power grab in our history, and once they gain
control of the Supreme Court, watch out.

by: hammerud

03-21-2009 @ 11:39am

I totally agree with you. The current administration even wants to
reduce deductions for charitable contributions, my main deduction.
Why would they do that??? Here is a quote from an anonymous
contributor to another blog: "They believe if it isn't the government
doing the giving, then it shoudn't be given at all. They really do.
It's not about helping the needy, it's about power. People giving
charitably does not increase their power and they have no control over
it. If they can switch the donators from the individuals to the
government, then they get more power."

We need to be really careful here. This administration is
implementing the biggest power grab in our history, and once they gain
control of the Supreme Court, watch out.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 11:58am

"The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power."

I would love an explanation as to how capitalism is an "institution." I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. Perhaps a "system," but even that word I find misleading because it implies that there was a choice to do System A, B, or C, and we chose C because that was our favorite or desired one. I would see "C" as the natural result of free people making free exchanges without initiation of force by any person or group.

by: xfree9

03-21-2009 @ 11:58am

"The trend for the past 30 years has been to tilt in favor of capitalism -- as if that is somehow natural while government is artifical. As if somehow we can trust that institution while we worry about government acquiring too much power."

I would love an explanation as to how capitalism is an "institution." I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. Perhaps a "system," but even that word I find misleading because it implies that there was a choice to do System A, B, or C, and we chose C because that was our favorite or desired one. I would see "C" as the natural result of free people making free exchanges without initiation of force by any person or group.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-21-2009 @ 2:24pm

Governments, politics, economies, values, laws and human nature are inextricably interwoven. There is no sacred answer as to how they must be structured--nor even if there is a best structure. Human society of 2009 is dramatically different from human society in 1776. Our tendency to think there is a perfect way, or right way, often freezes us in impossible debates.This is where systematic teaching from religious bodies and a presidential council like Wallis is on, should voice clear sets of common values and general metrics as to how we judge whether our governmental and economic systems manifest our values.

The one generalization I think is fair to make across-the-board--is something of a circular argument: "The best system is one in which the values are most consistently lived across the board." In other words, the best system is a system with integrity. When part of the system lacks integrity (e.g. when individuals cannot control their anger or greed) then the system will increasingly become twisted; with dysfunction feeding dysfunction.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-21-2009 @ 2:24pm

Governments, politics, economies, values, laws and human nature are inextricably interwoven. There is no sacred answer as to how they must be structured--nor even if there is a best structure. Human society of 2009 is dramatically different from human society in 1776. Our tendency to think there is a perfect way, or right way, often freezes us in impossible debates.This is where systematic teaching from religious bodies and a presidential council like Wallis is on, should voice clear sets of common values and general metrics as to how we judge whether our governmental and economic systems manifest our values.

The one generalization I think is fair to make across-the-board--is something of a circular argument: "The best system is one in which the values are most consistently lived across the board." In other words, the best system is a system with integrity. When part of the system lacks integrity (e.g. when individuals cannot control their anger or greed) then the system will increasingly become twisted; with dysfunction feeding dysfunction.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 12:00am

I think this ignores the issue.

When Jesus said that "the poor you will always have with you," He was specifically speaking to His disciples in the context that "you can help them anytime you want, but you will not always have Me." To quote that verse in saying that it's hopeless to help the poor is a misuse of Scripture and nothing more than an excuse for lethargy. And that blasphemes God, frankly.

As for "[teaching] people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor," the people who were supposed to be doing that were out demonizing the poor. I recall being in a right-wing suburban Atlanta church nearly 30 years ago, and the only thing I heard in the pulpit was how "those people" were out to get us. And if you look at Christian TV and listen to Christian radio, you won't see a whole lot about that -- because they don't raise funds to keep them on the air (It's still generally about the "culture war").

And do you know why that is? Because richer Christians, who generally live in the suburbs, have no contact with those neighborhoods. They don't understand the challenges and dynamics of living with virtually nothing and thus have no idea of how to help. Besides, many people are poor because of political decisions made in the halls of power -- which isn't often addressed because it costs power. That's the bottom line here.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 12:00am

I think this ignores the issue.

When Jesus said that "the poor you will always have with you," He was specifically speaking to His disciples in the context that "you can help them anytime you want, but you will not always have Me." To quote that verse in saying that it's hopeless to help the poor is a misuse of Scripture and nothing more than an excuse for lethargy. And that blasphemes God, frankly.

As for "[teaching] people to be considerate of others and to care about the poor," the people who were supposed to be doing that were out demonizing the poor. I recall being in a right-wing suburban Atlanta church nearly 30 years ago, and the only thing I heard in the pulpit was how "those people" were out to get us. And if you look at Christian TV and listen to Christian radio, you won't see a whole lot about that -- because they don't raise funds to keep them on the air (It's still generally about the "culture war").

And do you know why that is? Because richer Christians, who generally live in the suburbs, have no contact with those neighborhoods. They don't understand the challenges and dynamics of living with virtually nothing and thus have no idea of how to help. Besides, many people are poor because of political decisions made in the halls of power -- which isn't often addressed because it costs power. That's the bottom line here.

by: jonabark

03-23-2009 @ 5:03am

Free markets are not the same as corporate capitalism, which is the actual prevailing system as opposed to a libertarian fantasy. Corporate capitalism creates deathless artificial entities that seek to externalize costs and maximize profits through an elaborate system of investments and frequently the procurement of government contracts. Capitalist enterprises have always either hired mercenaries or worked in tandem with Government armies. Its existence has always been tied to government support and political corruption.
You can in no way show that the wealth of western capitalism is a result of free markets and the rule of law. Huge amounts of the wealth are a direct result of theft, slavery, warfare, intimidation and lies.

Your theories have nothing to do with the real world.
Your description of socialism idoes not describe a single actual country apart from Korea where it is impossible to separate the centrally planned economy from the absolute rule of a murderous thug.

The Social democracies of Europe and South America, and the New Deal years are considered the best working models of socialism among the vast majority of the world's lefties.

Real world free market capitalists do not have a history of supporting the rule of law but of subverting law. Also your theory completely discounts the democratic process by which people legitimately protect themselves from criminal business practices.

What you end up with in the weird religion you have glommed onto is a world of saintly free market christians versus evil socialists trying to steal the hard earned money of honest people. This is religious nonsense having nothing to do with history or social, economic, cultural, spiritual or any other reality.

Did you actually , and in the real world vote for George Bush? John McCain? Or did you cast your vote for libertarian theorist Ron Paul?
Where is the reality here?

by: jonabark

03-23-2009 @ 5:03am

Free markets are not the same as corporate capitalism, which is the actual prevailing system as opposed to a libertarian fantasy. Corporate capitalism creates deathless artificial entities that seek to externalize costs and maximize profits through an elaborate system of investments and frequently the procurement of government contracts. Capitalist enterprises have always either hired mercenaries or worked in tandem with Government armies. Its existence has always been tied to government support and political corruption.
You can in no way show that the wealth of western capitalism is a result of free markets and the rule of law. Huge amounts of the wealth are a direct result of theft, slavery, warfare, intimidation and lies.

Your theories have nothing to do with the real world.
Your description of socialism idoes not describe a single actual country apart from Korea where it is impossible to separate the centrally planned economy from the absolute rule of a murderous thug.

The Social democracies of Europe and South America, and the New Deal years are considered the best working models of socialism among the vast majority of the world's lefties.

Real world free market capitalists do not have a history of supporting the rule of law but of subverting law. Also your theory completely discounts the democratic process by which people legitimately protect themselves from criminal business practices.

What you end up with in the weird religion you have glommed onto is a world of saintly free market christians versus evil socialists trying to steal the hard earned money of honest people. This is religious nonsense having nothing to do with history or social, economic, cultural, spiritual or any other reality.

Did you actually , and in the real world vote for George Bush? John McCain? Or did you cast your vote for libertarian theorist Ron Paul?
Where is the reality here?

by: hammerud

03-23-2009 @ 7:28am

I've always read it as as acknowledgement by Jesus of the sad reality
of the way things will be as long as fallen human nature is the
underlying dynamic. In light of that perspective, it certainly does
not blaspheme God. There will not be poverty during the millenium when
God's rule is the underlying dynamic. I'll check out a few
commentaries, but my expectation is that they will validate my
perspective.

by: hammerud

03-23-2009 @ 7:28am

I've always read it as as acknowledgement by Jesus of the sad reality
of the way things will be as long as fallen human nature is the
underlying dynamic. In light of that perspective, it certainly does
not blaspheme God. There will not be poverty during the millenium when
God's rule is the underlying dynamic. I'll check out a few
commentaries, but my expectation is that they will validate my
perspective.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:29pm

With all due respect, that is a clearly incorrect interpretation based on the immediate context, which was about worshipping Him. In fact, while He was commending his disciples for wanting to "do the right thing," he was telling them that He should be the priority.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:29pm

With all due respect, that is a clearly incorrect interpretation based on the immediate context, which was about worshipping Him. In fact, while He was commending his disciples for wanting to "do the right thing," he was telling them that He should be the priority.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:59pm

From Matthew 26:

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9 "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

From Mark 14:

3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

6 "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

And from John 12:

1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Jesus in these passages is not clearly indicating that poverty is inevitable.

by: BlueDeacon

03-23-2009 @ 2:59pm

From Matthew 26:

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9 "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

From Mark 14:

3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

6 "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

And from John 12:

1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Jesus in these passages is not clearly indicating that poverty is inevitable.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 3:10pm

If 100 people were stranded on a desert island then, regardless of the
starting ethic, "government" (probably a totalitarian warlord variety)
is what emerges. Were you trying to prove that capitalism is natural
(and therefore not a human institution) in some way that government is
not?

Your idea that people can "freely exchange... with no coercion or threat
of force" is a dream of utopia. Given the reality of human sin, this
won't happen short of the Kingdom of God. You seem to assume this free
exchange as a prerequisite for capitalism. But my realism is precisely
why I see the need for government to strongly constrain against the
tyranny that your brand of capitalism would cause.

You say that we have not had a free market system since 1914. I submit
that even before that we have not had a free market system. Part of
what the free market system caused was slavery. Our outlawing of
slavery is a repudiation of the tyranny that your brand of capitalism
would (and did) cause.

We need government (and God instituted government, according to the
Bible) because humans act so badly towards each other. Without
government constraint, capitalism would truly become hell on earth.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 3:10pm

If 100 people were stranded on a desert island then, regardless of the
starting ethic, "government" (probably a totalitarian warlord variety)
is what emerges. Were you trying to prove that capitalism is natural
(and therefore not a human institution) in some way that government is
not?

Your idea that people can "freely exchange... with no coercion or threat
of force" is a dream of utopia. Given the reality of human sin, this
won't happen short of the Kingdom of God. You seem to assume this free
exchange as a prerequisite for capitalism. But my realism is precisely
why I see the need for government to strongly constrain against the
tyranny that your brand of capitalism would cause.

You say that we have not had a free market system since 1914. I submit
that even before that we have not had a free market system. Part of
what the free market system caused was slavery. Our outlawing of
slavery is a repudiation of the tyranny that your brand of capitalism
would (and did) cause.

We need government (and God instituted government, according to the
Bible) because humans act so badly towards each other. Without
government constraint, capitalism would truly become hell on earth.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:08pm

"but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) "

If you think that every victim of starvation is a victim of captialism's inequities, you do not bring enough to the table to participate in an adult conversation on the topic.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:08pm

"but the number that die of starvation (i.e. are killed by capitalism's inequities) "

If you think that every victim of starvation is a victim of captialism's inequities, you do not bring enough to the table to participate in an adult conversation on the topic.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 4:39pm

I understand the there is enough food produced right now on this planet
to satisfy the nutritional requirements of every human. No one needs to
starve to death based on total availability.

Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and
distribution.

Since there is enough food, but capitalism is preventing people's most
basic needs from being satisfied, then, YES, I would claim that every
victim of starvation is a victim of capitalism's inequalities.

I'm sorry that you think that my views are too childish to be worth
conversation. I take it that you will NOT reply, then. Thanks.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 4:39pm

I understand the there is enough food produced right now on this planet
to satisfy the nutritional requirements of every human. No one needs to
starve to death based on total availability.

Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and
distribution.

Since there is enough food, but capitalism is preventing people's most
basic needs from being satisfied, then, YES, I would claim that every
victim of starvation is a victim of capitalism's inequalities.

I'm sorry that you think that my views are too childish to be worth
conversation. I take it that you will NOT reply, then. Thanks.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:54pm

"Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and

distribution."

In America, sorta. Elsewhere, no.

by: kevin47

03-23-2009 @ 4:54pm

"Capitalism is the system currently in place to control ownership and

distribution."

In America, sorta. Elsewhere, no.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 5:36pm

I disagree with you. Let us end it there -- that we disagree.

by: Stein

03-23-2009 @ 5:36pm

I disagree with you. Let us end it there -- that we disagree.

by: Ngchen

03-23-2009 @ 7:24pm

Can you please elaborate on the libertarian "rule of law" concept? I'm not familiar with it.

Now, when it comes to transportation, you're correct in that the road subsidies have been distortionary. Once something gets subsidized, it gains (perhaps unfairly) an advantage over its competitors. I bring up roads though b/c it is generally impractical to toll all roads, and be able to effectively collect the tolls (For one thing, there'd be toll booths on every block, and/or fences are needed to reduce people cutting in mid-way.) These added costs, not to mention having to stop to drop money in (another added cost), make tolling all roads impractical. Of course, when something is "subsidized," it's not really free; rather, someone else has decided to pay it or is being forced to pay it.

Is that situation ideal? No. And you're correct that the majority of things are better off being run by the capitalist system. The exceptions are few. But I will submit that they do exist.

by: Ngchen

03-23-2009 @ 7:24pm

Can you please elaborate on the libertarian "rule of law" concept? I'm not familiar with it.

Now, when it comes to transportation, you're correct in that the road subsidies have been distortionary. Once something gets subsidized, it gains (perhaps unfairly) an advantage over its competitors. I bring up roads though b/c it is generally impractical to toll all roads, and be able to effectively collect the tolls (For one thing, there'd be toll booths on every block, and/or fences are needed to reduce people cutting in mid-way.) These added costs, not to mention having to stop to drop money in (another added cost), make tolling all roads impractical. Of course, when something is "subsidized," it's not really free; rather, someone else has decided to pay it or is being forced to pay it.

Is that situation ideal? No. And you're correct that the majority of things are better off being run by the capitalist system. The exceptions are few. But I will submit that they do exist.