Going to Church on Wall Street to Talk About Ethical Economics

"So, what would happen if those who participated in this conference examined their investments and placed their money in institutions that were more socially responsible?"

The number of people is simply too small. In fact, if all of the Christians in the country did the same it wouldn't make much difference.

If a national denomination or major parachurch institution went public with their decision to move their entire assets, that could encourage other institutions to do likewise. Also, some individual churches have substantial assets that would definitely have a ripple effect at the local level if they took their funds out of one of the banks behaving badly and put it elsewhere. And if enough individuals 1) put their money in a more socially responsible bank and 2) refused to donate to any entity that didn't engage in responsible banking practices, I think you'd see a shift here as well.

Whose "truth"??

You forget one thing: To be able to buy goods and services you have to have resources in the first place. Now, if enough people don't have and can't get those resources the system falls apart -- or should. Over the past 30 years or so America's economy has been based largely on speculation (housing, stocks etc.) that don't have anything to do with trade and which, of course, don't really create either jobs or incentive to work. That was the big problem with the Crash of '29 that led to the Great Depression.

No. I mean those who support the truth.

Don't think I defend the current system the US has. It's 90% socialism and that's why it falls apart. It's a myth that the US is a capitalist nation.

To get the resources to buy goods and services, people have to have a jobs. Production must come before consumption. Where do jobs come from? They come from businesses starting up and expanding, which requires profits, the thing that progressives consider the greatest evil under the sun.

The economy since 2000 has been driven by the Feds pumping vast amounts of money into the economy, not by increases in production and job creation. Most of that money went into speculating in stocks and real estate because the people with the money considered those to be better investments than manufacturing. Why is manufacturing considered such a bad investment? High taxes, high regulation, and high inflation, or the progressive agenda, destroy investment in manufacturing by destroying profits.

You're thinking of Soviet style socialism in which the state owned
everything. That's just one manifestation of socialism and not the original.
The original socialism had the state controlling private property but leaving
the paper title in the hands of the owner. Under the original socialist model,
the US is very socialist.

That is utterly ridiculous. You still don't address the business lobbies that
pressure the government for special favors, which were fairly prevalent
beginning in the 1980s. In that context, our country is more fascist rather
than socialist.

We have lost most of our labor intensive manufacturing, such as textiles,
because of high taxes, high regulation and high inflation, all of which have
been the progressive agenda for a century.

Most of the textile mills were in the South, which is as libertarian an area
as any region of the country, so that excuse doesn't fly. In fact, according
to the Wall Street Journal, in North Carolina (a supposed high-growth state),
state and local authorities gave so many tax breaks to companies coming in
that they couldn't afford to build a school; one such carpentry company
featured on "60 Minutes" even moved overseas. That was called flat-out greed.
Where I live the primary industry was steel; however, companies failed to
upgrade their facilities because they didn't want to spend the money to
invest.

Whose "truth"??

"our political system... won't permit that."

You're thinking of Soviet style socialism in which the state owned everything. That's just one manifestation of socialism and not the original. The original socialism had the state controlling private property but leaving the paper title in the hands of the owner. Under the original socialist model, the US is very socialist.

"We haven't had a manufacturing base since the 1970s;"

The US is still the world's largest manufacturer. Just check out the data at the Bureau of Economic Affairs, or the Federal Reserve. We have lost most of our labor intensive manufacturing, such as textiles, because of high taxes, high regulation and high inflation, all of which have been the progressive agenda for a century.

"That's not what killed the steel industry when I live."

Poor management plays a role, too, but add poor management to high taxes, high regulation and high inflation and it's a wonder we have any manufacturing left at all.

Becky, might I also suggest you pepper your reading material with The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hyack as well as anything by Nobel Prize winner Milton Freidman.

"

Actually, if we believe the claims that the US is a "Christian Country," then the number of people will be huge, and it would make a huge difference. Like any movement, I'm guessing any effect would follow a S-shaped curve. Once enough people actually do X, where the number reaches a critical mass, most of the rest of the people follow.

If a national denomination or major parachurch institution went public with their decision to move their entire assets, that could encourage other institutions to do likewise. Also, some individual churches have substantial assets that would definitely have a ripple effect at the local level if they took their funds out of one of the banks behaving badly and put it elsewhere. And if enough individuals 1) put their money in a more socially responsible bank and 2) refused to donate to any entity that didn't engage in responsible banking practices, I think you'd see a shift here as well.

You forget one thing: To be able to buy goods and services you have to have resources in the first place. Now, if enough people don't have and can't get those resources the system falls apart -- or should. Over the past 30 years or so America's economy has been based largely on speculation (housing, stocks etc.) that don't have anything to do with trade and which, of course, don't really create either jobs or incentive to work. That was the big problem with the Crash of '29 that led to the Great Depression.

Don't think I defend the current system the US has. It's 90% socialism and that's why it falls apart. It's a myth that the US is a capitalist nation.

To get the resources to buy goods and services, people have to have a jobs. Production must come before consumption. Where do jobs come from? They come from businesses starting up and expanding, which requires profits, the thing that progressives consider the greatest evil under the sun.

The economy since 2000 has been driven by the Feds pumping vast amounts of money into the economy, not by increases in production and job creation. Most of that money went into speculating in stocks and real estate because the people with the money considered those to be better investments than manufacturing. Why is manufacturing considered such a bad investment? High taxes, high regulation, and high inflation, or the progressive agenda, destroy investment in manufacturing by destroying profits.

You're thinking of Soviet style socialism in which the state owned
everything. That's just one manifestation of socialism and not the original.
The original socialism had the state controlling private property but leaving
the paper title in the hands of the owner. Under the original socialist model,
the US is very socialist.

That is utterly ridiculous. You still don't address the business lobbies that
pressure the government for special favors, which were fairly prevalent
beginning in the 1980s. In that context, our country is more fascist rather
than socialist.

We have lost most of our labor intensive manufacturing, such as textiles,
because of high taxes, high regulation and high inflation, all of which have
been the progressive agenda for a century.

Most of the textile mills were in the South, which is as libertarian an area
as any region of the country, so that excuse doesn't fly. In fact, according
to the Wall Street Journal, in North Carolina (a supposed high-growth state),
state and local authorities gave so many tax breaks to companies coming in
that they couldn't afford to build a school; one such carpentry company
featured on "60 Minutes" even moved overseas. That was called flat-out greed.
Where I live the primary industry was steel; however, companies failed to
upgrade their facilities because they didn't want to spend the money to
invest.