Are Christians Bad for an Empire's Economy? Should They Be?

"Day in and day out Wal-Mart employs and delivers legitimate products/services in poorer communities; and sells products manufactured in poorer countries. And they make boatloads of money."

As they should [make boatloads of money]. Long forgotten is the value of capital accumulation. Without it nobody could save, therefore nobody could invest, therefore no commercial progress could happen. Even if you're against all of these, and you want to soak the rich, you better hope they earn a lot of money because that means more for your welfare and "public service" projects (as if offering the community a low price for a product is not a public service!).

"I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day."

We take it for granted that there are wealthy people in our nation, whereas most of us in the United States are in the top 5% of the world, and the top 1% of the world historically. Far too often the focus is on what "creates" poverty, when the question should be, "What creates wealth, and how do we stand aside and let the most number of people achieve such a thing?" We all started in poverty, not in wealth. Wealth is not the default position.

"Day in and day out Wal-Mart employs and delivers legitimate products/services in poorer communities; and sells products manufactured in poorer countries. And they make boatloads of money."

As they should [make boatloads of money]. Long forgotten is the value of capital accumulation. Without it nobody could save, therefore nobody could invest, therefore no commercial progress could happen. Even if you're against all of these, and you want to soak the rich, you better hope they earn a lot of money because that means more for your welfare and "public service" projects (as if offering the community a low price for a product is not a public service!).

"I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day."

We take it for granted that there are wealthy people in our nation, whereas most of us in the United States are in the top 5% of the world, and the top 1% of the world historically. Far too often the focus is on what "creates" poverty, when the question should be, "What creates wealth, and how do we stand aside and let the most number of people achieve such a thing?" We all started in poverty, not in wealth. Wealth is not the default position.

I'm not talking about abstract economic principles that "might" lead to lower prices. I'm talking about specific, actual business practices of the Wal-Mart corporation whereby they are able to offer lower prices than their competitors by passing those costs along to others: tax-payers, local communities, sweatshop laborers, and their own employees, for instance. And this is not a question of "competing narratives", these are documented facts, a matter of the public record. Check out the facts, the hard data, for yourself, before trying to just write it off with a bunch of misplaced skepticism.

"If Wal-Mart marked everything up 30%--would you be pleased?"

Nope. That's not the point at all. What would please me is if they stopped taking their profits at the expense of sweatshop workers in China, at the expense of their employees, at the expense of tax-payers, at the expense of their local communities, and at the expense of the environment. (And yes, these are all documented facts, not merely an alternative "narrative".) I'm all for providing more affordable goods to poor people, but not if it has to come at the expense of even poorer people. Profits are fine, but not when they are taken from the common purse, at the expense of the common good, or through the exploitation of the "least of these." (And again, I'm not speaking abstractly or "narratively", this is based on hard facts.)

Good Lord, Lord! haven't you ever heard of Google.. Trying using your knowledge of the internet before concluding that there isn't anything you can do about human trafficking, products made with slave labor, etc.

"If Wal-Mart marked everything up 30%--would you be pleased?"

Nope. That's not the point at all. What would please me is if they stopped taking their profits at the expense of sweatshop workers in China, at the expense of their employees, at the expense of tax-payers, at the expense of their local communities, and at the expense of the environment. (And yes, these are all documented facts, not merely an alternative "narrative".) I'm all for providing more affordable goods to poor people, but not if it has to come at the expense of even poorer people.

My most frequent purchase at wal-mart is store brand organic milk. $3.34 per half gallon. In general, the profit-margin on groceries is less than 2%. So Wal-mart may make six cents on the transaction.

The milk likely comes from a US dairy. Transported by trucks with parts from around the world. Cows fed on feeds produced with equipment from around the world and supported with federal price supports. Cows milked with stainless steel manufactured in Japan. And the trail proceeds to all ends of the global system involving the exploitation of energy and resources--and the payment of workers, poor and rich.

What is your general proposal? That I make the purchase at the local convenience store? They don't sell organic milk. That I drive 20 extra miles and buy it at Target? That I don't buy it?

Why is Wal=mart a unique 'culprit?' Or am I the culprit for putting milk on the table for my children?

If you don't want the business to deliver the product that can deliver with great efficiency--what kind of business do you want?

Do you want everyone in New York City to have a cow on the rooftop that they milk and pasteurize the milk at home?

Good Lord, Lord! haven't you ever heard of Google.. Trying using your knowledge of the internet before concluding that there isn't anything you can do about human trafficking, products made with slave labor, etc.

Julie makes some awful accusations about a lot of companies, but she doesn't tell us who is doing these awful things, or what proof she has that they are going on. If she isn't willing to name names, there isn't a thing any of us can do about any of it, left, right, or sideways.

LV

"In fact those who question the system, or even question small parts of that system, are labeled as unpatriotic and (therefore) unchristian. It is those who stand with the poor and the oppressed, who choose not to give their money to false gods and unjust entities, that face ridicule for their faith these days."

No they don't. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised.

"I wonder what it would take for Christians these days to have such a significant economic impact on a part of our culture that it starts freaking the government out."

Wait, freak out the government? I thought the government was the good guy? You're saying there is a way to help the poor without government benevolence? Interesting.

"What if we all choose not to buy products made by slave labor? What if we choose not to invest in companies that provide brothel visits with trafficked children as incentives for businessmen? What if we only bought clothing or food for which workers were paid a living wage?"

Name companies and products.

"These Christians lived out their beliefs and seemingly had profound impact until the Romans started pressuring them to abandon their values."

So you're telling me that things were good until government coercion made them bad?

Economic boycotts may or may not be effective in influencing policies practiced by governments or corporations. The boycotts practiced by African Americans to change the policies of the Montgomery, Alabama bus companies required several weeks, but eventually resulted in changes. Each of us must judge within the context of our Christian faith, what our actions should be. So whether you subscribed to the disvestment of South African companies during the apartheid era or whether you stopped shopping at Walmart because they wished you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", you intentionally or unintentionally reveal what your priorities are.

I've found that I'm persecuted more by those IN the church rather than out of it because of the economic decisions we make as a family. Even just biking to church rather than driving seems to cause quite a stir. Bringing up that we should try to reduce our consumption for the sake of the environment elicits both bitterness and ridicule. And though people nod their heads in agreement when I bring up problems of slavery around the world, when it actually comes to what you buy and where you buy it from, I'm pretty much loudly ignored (as in the people I mention it around will first verbally dismiss me, then walk away from me).

I find it utterly ironic that I gain more support from non-Christians than Christians in terms of how I live and what economic choices I make.

I think it would be great if we could buy products that are guaranteed to be made without the use of slave labor or children under the age of 14. However, it IS hard to know what's OK to buy and what isn't. Fair trade products are a good beginning. But we should certainly be at the forefront of finding ways to get product information on the market so that people can shop responsibly.

Julie,

You're obviously new to this site so let me pass on some information. Those who insisted that you name names are intelligent enough to have done their homework on the internet and learned which companies and products are involved in slave labor. That should be enough to tell you what their real motivations are.

Julie makes some awful accusations about a lot of companies, but she doesn't tell us who is doing these awful things, or what proof she has that they are going on. If she isn't willing to name names, there isn't a thing any of us can do about any of it, left, right, or sideways.

LV

Julie,

Thank you very much for the follow-up post with additional information to carry a dialogue. I don't expect contributors to engage in alot of conversation--but the willingness to add a clarification, give more information, ask readers a provacative question, or coming back with a simple "thanks for reading the post" -- does wonders to establish a framework for dialogue.

"In fact those who question the system, or even question small parts of that system, are labeled as unpatriotic and (therefore) unchristian. It is those who stand with the poor and the oppressed, who choose not to give their money to false gods and unjust entities, that face ridicule for their faith these days."

No they don't. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised.

"I wonder what it would take for Christians these days to have such a significant economic impact on a part of our culture that it starts freaking the government out."

Wait, freak out the government? I thought the government was the good guy? You're saying there is a way to help the poor without government benevolence? Interesting.

"What if we all choose not to buy products made by slave labor? What if we choose not to invest in companies that provide brothel visits with trafficked children as incentives for businessmen? What if we only bought clothing or food for which workers were paid a living wage?"

Name companies and products.

"These Christians lived out their beliefs and seemingly had profound impact until the Romans started pressuring them to abandon their values."

So you're telling me that things were good until government coercion made them bad?

"But we should certainly be at the forefront of finding ways to get product information on the market so that people can shop responsibly."

Is it not amazing we ell produce and label it organic, give the amount of calories and fat grams , Put expiration dates and such , labels that indicate anaimals were not used in research for perfume companies, even statements on movie credits that no animals were hurt in the production of this film , but we have nothing on the label that indicates that people were treated less then human in the making of this product .

Boycotts do not seem to work . Disney Land was boycotted because of their connection to gay rights . I have seen People who were in organizations that boycotted Wal Mart in there shopping .

I do think God wants us to be smart consumers . And the living green message makes sense in as far as it takes better care of the planet . Also More money not spent on "stuff" the more that can go to helping those without even the basics ,
Being independent in regards to not owing money, this makes sense for government also , doing that to the glory of Christ so you can give more freely to those in need makes more sense to me then boycotting DisneyLand .

Economic boycotts may or may not be effective in influencing policies practiced by governments or corporations. The boycotts practiced by African Americans to change the policies of the Montgomery, Alabama bus companies required several weeks, but eventually resulted in changes. Each of us must judge within the context of our Christian faith, what our actions should be. So whether you subscribed to the disvestment of South African companies during the apartheid era or whether you stopped shopping at Walmart because they wished you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", you intentionally or unintentionally reveal what your priorities are.

"No they don't. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised. "

Oh, I guess you have conveniently forgotten how the term "Socialist " is bantered around by pundits on Fox News in reference to some of Obama's policies. It is clear that in our society (North America/USA) calling somebody Socialist is tantamount to questioning their patriotism. (We won't go into the "fascist" label that has been assigned by some conservatives to Obama and his policies. To bring up the "F" word on this blog is equivalent to shutting down dialogue-- unless of course it is the Conservatives using the label ont he Progressives. But that's okay ;-)

Oh yeah, I forgot. What I said just simply isn't true. I must be suffering from the same delusion as Julie.

I agree that Christians shouldn't buy from companies that employ slaves or engage in human trafficking. Is there any evidence that American Christians who avoid these companies face persecution or that if more American Christians did it some sort of persecution would result? I'm asking these questions because I'm truly interested in knowing of some examples. In my experience it seems that Christians and others who take moral stands against certain corporate injustices are, for the most part, lauded in our society.

That may have to do with personal decisions than any organized campaign. I have not even been in a Wal-Mart since 2001 and in fact the next year gladly covered an ongoing story about some folks trying to keep one out of their neighborhood. (It did not go in but not because of its unpopularity.)

That said, we can't always say that boycotts don't work -- it depends on the context. The economic sanctions on South Africa due to apartheid actually did work because people there were truly afraid of losing money, and a lot of people in the country itself realized that the system needed to be abolished.

I've found that I'm persecuted more by those IN the church rather than out of it because of the economic decisions we make as a family. Even just biking to church rather than driving seems to cause quite a stir. Bringing up that we should try to reduce our consumption for the sake of the environment elicits both bitterness and ridicule. And though people nod their heads in agreement when I bring up problems of slavery around the world, when it actually comes to what you buy and where you buy it from, I'm pretty much loudly ignored (as in the people I mention it around will first verbally dismiss me, then walk away from me).

I find it utterly ironic that I gain more support from non-Christians than Christians in terms of how I live and what economic choices I make.

I think it would be great if we could buy products that are guaranteed to be made without the use of slave labor or children under the age of 14. However, it IS hard to know what's OK to buy and what isn't. Fair trade products are a good beginning. But we should certainly be at the forefront of finding ways to get product information on the market so that people can shop responsibly.

I boycott it personally because of its business practices. It "keeps prices low" in part by exploiting its workers -- in some cases they were forced to work "off the clock" and in others management closed stores after they formed unions. On top of that, Wal-Mart tends to drive out more established businesses by undercutting them on prices -- putting those people, especially the ones who work at the mom-and-pop stores, out of work -- and then sends most of that money down to Arkansas. Now tell me how that helps the community. (I'm told that prices are now more comparable to other stores anyway, and where I live Wal-Mart doesn't advertise its "low prices" anymore.)

Anyway, in this particular situation I'm talking about, the township wanted to shoehorn the store in an area which wasn't large enough as it was and in the process violated its own land use ordinances in approving it. The plans were scuttled when the site gave way and caused a landslide across the major highway in that area and some adjoining railroad tracks, causing major tie-ups in the entire Eastern United States.

But I digress. I would think that, as a libertarian, you would be somewhat suspicious of anything that's so "big," whether politically or economically, because those with $$$ tend to push people around. My Bible says more about the dangers of economic heft than political power, and I think that's the case primarily in this country because folks with means all but own the government.