Prophets and Profits

Good points! The OT prohibitions against usury applied to lending to the poor. I would like to see churches open banks for poor people and lend at zero interest. Also, co-ops for poor areas are great, as would be a check cashing facility that charged nothing to cash checks. Many poor, especially hispanics, don't have bank accounts and keep their money at home in cash.

The question is can we force people to adopt better morals? We have tried doing so with legislation and regulation for over a century. How well has that worked?

Depending on the times, very, very well. When abortion was banned over 100 years ago it was the result of a number of factors which culminated in a groundswell of popular support. The same with civil rights for African-Americans, who made their enemies look like the bad guys that they had become. (And in fact, you could even argue that was the rationale for getting involved in World War II.)

Excellent!

In the civil rights case, people had decided that discrimination based on race was immoral, so they changed the law. The law did not change them.

Actually, it did. Southern culture actually expresses a considerable respect for "law and order," and many people eventually acquiesced to the changes for that reason. What happened was that the civil-rights movement by design exposed the general lawlessness and disorder of Southern racists; while white folks weren't happy about desegregation they came to prefer that to dealing with the crazies. Truth is, a majority of white Southerners hated the Ku Klux Klan, not because they disagreed with its racial views but because it didn't seem to know how to act.

In the case of abortion, morality changed the law. Then in 1963 a change in morality changed the law again. The law did not prevent a change in morality that saw abortion as a virtue.

Not quite -- those laws were largely obliterated by one SCOTUS decision and morality changed as a result. This is not to say, however, that a reversal of Roe in itself will change things back.

And don't tell me that since Reagan all of that was undone. Since Reagan less than 1% of the regulations implemented by FDR and since have been changed.

A lot of the big ones were. I wish I could remember the details, but Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and subsequent legislation had relaxed rules on which part of the financial sector could do what. (Bill Clinton, to his discredit, approved some of that legislation.)

It is time to review the history of prohibition, the social consequences of that period, and compare that to the current war on drugs?

Suggest that there is a need to do so. We lurch from 'lets prevent a problem so impose corrective legislation, and then when the unimagined consequences occur, some times find out that the cure is worse than the original problem.

Likewise, one of the major consequences of the ban on abortion in my country were the numbers of deaths of women from botched backyard abortions. Again the poor suffered more.

For example, the apparent slide to a failed nation for the area to the South of the USA land border with Mexico with the combination of drug and people smuggling. Will the consequences from the policies in the USA create a larger problem that that for which they were to correct?

Careful reviews of the effects of social engineering via the state or even through orchestrated public opinion by special interest groups is needed.

To do that you would have to have a very, very large, metro-located church with economically diverse parishioners, which mine is. Otherwise, the church isn't really going to know just what the poor need.

Montgomery (AL) has seen a tidal wave of payday loan operations open in the last few years following a change in state law. A ministry option can be found at graceperiod.org that is essentially a savings club which gives members access to emergency loans and counseling if they end up with repetetive emergency needs.

When Helping Hurts is a great book by Corbett and Fikkert from the Chalmers Center for Economic Development--applicable to poor communities in US and globally.

Good points! The OT prohibitions against usury applied to lending to the poor. I would like to see churches open banks for poor people and lend at zero interest. Also, co-ops for poor areas are great, as would be a check cashing facility that charged nothing to cash checks. Many poor, especially hispanics, don't have bank accounts and keep their money at home in cash.

The question is can we force people to adopt better morals? We have tried doing so with legislation and regulation for over a century. How well has that worked?

Depending on the times, very, very well. When abortion was banned over 100 years ago it was the result of a number of factors which culminated in a groundswell of popular support. The same with civil rights for African-Americans, who made their enemies look like the bad guys that they had become. (And in fact, you could even argue that was the rationale for getting involved in World War II.)

There were two major changes in banking law since Carter. One was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall amendment that prevented commercial banks from doing investment banking. However, all of the major banks that went broke or took bail out money were investment banks, so G-S did not apply to them.

The second one was a change in the way reserves are calculated and the way risk is calculated, again, for commercial banks. It had nothing to do with investment banking. And the change was made to make the US conform to European standards, called the Basel accords on banking. We conformed our laws to theirs because every economist in the world and every banker said they were stricter rules that would make banking safer.

Other than those two, I don't know of any other changes to banking regulation, and banks are among the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

You don't have any economic examples? Besides, legislation and regulation reflect existing morals; they don't change morals. In the civil rights case, people had decided that discrimination based on race was immoral, so they changed the law. The law did not change them.

In the case of abortion, morality changed the law. Then in 1963 a change in morality changed the law again. The law did not prevent a change in morality that saw abortion as a virtue.

We have had economic crises at least once a decade for the past 300 years. Since WWII, we have tried to eliminate those with law and regulation. And don't tell me that since Reagan all of that was undone. Since Reagan less than 1% of the regulations implemented by FDR and since have been changed.

Awesome! Now imagine using the gospel to spread ideas to other churches who can do the same...

It is time to review the history of prohibition, the social consequences of that period, and compare that to the current war on drugs?

Suggest that there is a need to do so. We lurch from 'lets prevent a problem so impose corrective legislation, and then when the unimagined consequences occur, some times find out that the cure is worse than the original problem.

Likewise, one of the major consequences of the ban on abortion in my country were the numbers of deaths of women from botched backyard abortions. Again the poor suffered more.

For example, the apparent slide to a failed nation for the area to the South of the USA land border with Mexico with the combination of drug and people smuggling. Will the consequences from the policies in the USA create a larger problem that that for which they were to correct?

Careful reviews of the effects of social engineering via the state or even through orchestrated public opinion by special interest groups is needed.

what we see in just about any political/moral survey is that americans tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative regarding government intervention. it's also a logical pairing. government impositions on business in the form of taxes, permits, local policies, credit, etc. tend to make it more difficult for small business to get started and be successful.

large corporate entities as in box stores which are ubiquitous find ways to get government subsidies to build in smaller areas where land is cheaper and then they have enough clout to find all the tax loopholes to lower their marginal rate. this is the argument for a flat tax where those below a certain income level get the benefit of breaks and incentives to be productive and all those loopholes are closed off for those who are raking in the dough. our progressive tax system is backwards right now. it's a good idea, but years of litigation and amendments have deformed it to the point where it reinforces inequality.

the point is that local systems have local needs to perform network closure that federal imposition tries to smooth out and so, misses the mark. last week's SCOTUS ruling only exacerbates this destructive trend.

There were two major changes in banking law since Carter. One was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall amendment that prevented commercial banks from doing investment banking. However, all of the major banks that went broke or took bail out money were investment banks, so G-S did not apply to them.

The second one was a change in the way reserves are calculated and the way risk is calculated, again, for commercial banks. It had nothing to do with investment banking. And the change was made to make the US conform to European standards, called the Basel accords on banking. We conformed our laws to theirs because every economist in the world and every banker said they were stricter rules that would make banking safer.

Other than those two, I don't know of any other changes to banking regulation, and banks are among the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

There was someone from my church there, plus a former pastor and (I think) a
seminarian who also once attended. Do you remember whom you talked to?

chocolate ugg
chocolate ugg boot
mini ugg
mini ugg boots
mini ugg boots
mini uggs

The card I carried away was Tony W (cofounder/president of graceperiod)

There was someone from my church there, plus a former pastor and (I think) a
seminarian who also once attended. Do you remember whom you talked to?