Free Enterprize/Democracy?

[Jonathan]

our progressive tax code is set up to help the poor even though it is abused.

It may be that the intent of a progressive tax code is to help the poor (by hitting the wealthy hardest) but that intent runs into the wall of the truth of fundamental economic laws. Look at the 2001 and 2003 federal tax rate reductions. The top income tax rates were lowered. The result was that those in those top brackets paid an even greater percentage of the overall income tax burden than before the tax rate reductions.

A progressive tax structure only gives the illusion that the poor are better off.

 

[gb93433]

The critical difference in the Acts 4 example and Socialism is that the mode of participation. Acts 4 was the result of each individual's desire/need for Christian community and it was voluntary. Socialism uses the armed force of government to confiscate wealth.

The two are not even close.

Socialism also distributes wealth. Some of the countries that have the highest standard of living in the world are what we would call socialistic. In many ways they see themselves as having more freedom than those in the US. They expect to work their entire life but once they retire are well taken care of. Their education is free to those who can make it. Each employee gets one month of vacation in the summer and one week in the winter. The top paid employee does not get 500 times the lowest as so many companies in the U.S.

Something to ponder: Because God gives someone more brains or creativity should he be paid more than another who labors serving the wealthy? Should the rich be able to live lavishly off of the backs of the poor? Did God design the poor to be abused and serve the rich just so the rich could live lavishly. I would contend that the rich should be giving to equal out the scenario. The rich who do are blessed. The rich who do not are often plagued with their greediness.

I remember what Jesus said when he said that the greatest should become the leeast. Leadership is not about how much money one can accumulate so he can have gold plated faucet handles but about how he can serve others with his wealth. That is what makes Christianity different.

I know a man who is very wealthy who supports missionaries full time. He started and retired as a school teacher. Over the years he invested his money and became wealthy. He has never bought things that were unnecessary. His home is an average home in an average community.

 

[drfuss]

[/b]

It may be that the intent of a progressive tax code is to help the poor (by hitting the wealthy hardest) but that intent runs into the wall of the truth of fundamental economic laws. Look at the 2001 and 2003 federal tax rate reductions. The top income tax rates were lowered. The result was that those in those top brackets paid an even greater percentage of the overall income tax burden than before the tax rate reductions.

A progressive tax structure only gives the illusion that the poor are better off.

The sywtem is abused by tax laws that protect the rich such as tax shelters. The tax rate reductions benefit the economy and the rich pay more taxes because the rich take some of their money out of tax shelter investments. The tax rate reduction people do not point out that after a few years, the investment changes settle down and things return to as before except the tax rate is lower, i.e. less taxes collected in the long run.

If the progressive tax structure was without the loop holes, the poor would benefit.

 

[drfuss]

Socialism also distributes wealth. Some of the countries that have the highest standard of living in the world are what we would call socialistic. In many ways they see themselves as having more freedom than those in the US. They expect to work their entire life but once they retire are well taken care of. Their education is free to those who can make it. Each employee gets one month of vacation in the summer and one week in the winter. The top paid employee does not get 500 times the lowest as so many companies in the U.S.

Something to ponder: Because God gives someone more brains or creativity should he be paid more than another who labors serving the wealthy? Should the rich be able to live lavishly off of the backs of the poor? Did God design the poor to be abused and serve the rich just so the rich could live lavishly. I would contend that the rich should be giving to equal out the scenario. The rich who do are blessed. The rich who do not are often plagued with their greediness.

I remember what Jesus said when he said that the greatest should become the leeast. Leadership is not about how much money one can accumulate so he can have gold plated faucet handles but about how he can serve others with his wealth. That is what makes Christianity different.

I know a man who is very wealthy who supports missionaries full time. He started and retired as a school teacher. Over the years he invested his money and became wealthy. He has never bought things that were unnecessary. His home is an average home in an average community.

Good post. Perhaps socialism isn't so bad after all. Keeping the CEO's and company presidents from making 500 times what the lowest paid employee makes is a system worth looking at. Control by the goverment vs. control by the rich might be better on many issues. At least we can vote for or against the goverment. Are socialists governments controlled by the rich as our politicians are?

Israel had a theocracy with a king and the O.T. prophets said they mistreated the poor and fatherless. Is our free enterprize system any better? Are socialist systems any better?

 

[EdSutton]

Could this be the reason Paul took up offerings for the "Poor Saints at Jerusalem"?

Great question! Here is a quote from Sir Winston Churchill, with a bit added from a couple of other friends of mine, and me, as well. I'll put the actual words of Churchill in 'bold'.
"'Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery! The inherent vice of captialism is the unequal sharing of blessings.' Socialism is the Utopia of collective greed. "It's the Great Society for people that don't have dreams." (John Crowe) There is no such thing as giving, and you can not have freedom, at the end of a gun; ["Free people give and always have and produce more, simply because they are free." (Unsure of the source, here.) ("Have you ever noticed that we have no "'out-agration' quotas" in the United States?" (Rich de Vos) And unlike some nations, we will not shoot anyone for leaving the US. One can leave any time he or she wishes!)] You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot gear everything at the caboose, or the engine will die. The beauty of capitalism is that there is no floor put under your feet, nor ceiling put over your head. Capitalism is synonomous with liberty. And liberty is the desire of life.

"Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch I am privileged to have hold for the moment. I want to make it burn as brilliantly as possible before passing it on to future generations." (John Crowe)

FTR, in answer to the thread title, the United States is not, never has been, and was not intended to be a democracy. A democracy is an ever changing ideal of secular humanism, with a 50% +1 rule of the majority. "We were not founded as a democracy; we were founded (and are) as a constitutional republic, governed by laws and representatives of the majority, with rights and protections for the minority." (Jim Martin) That does not exist in a democracy, which is ever changing to meet the situation and/or desires of the moment, no matter who may be run over in the process.

No people in history ever gave as much to others, as Americans, both as to Christian and non-Christian enterprises.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Perhaps socialism isn't so bad after all. .-.-. Are socialists (sic) governments controlled by the rich as our politicians are?

Uh- yeah!

Ed

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

All systems by the way can be corrupted by greed. A free market just doesn't give shelter to the greedy or reward them so easily.

Like Ebinezor Scrooge said, that's what debtor's prisons are for, right?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

No. In the stock market, we look to buy shares in companies that will do well and grow in value (i.e. maximizing value). As these companies do, we share in this growth in value. As we do this, we do not do it at the expense of those whose shares have not grown in value. You are under the impression that the economy is a zero sum game where one may only prosper if another suffers. If this were true, the total value of the stock market would have remained constant since its founding.

I don't agree with your statement about the stock market. For every buyer there must be a seller. That's how the system works. The money of those who buy high and sell low is taken by those who buy low and sell high. Of course stock brokers make it not really a zero sum game because they benefit on both sides, something like the house in a casino. If this nearly zero sum attribute of the market weren't the case where would the money come when investors sell at a higher price than they bought? It's a closed system.

 

[EdSutton]

Any ideas on what systems would be morally better?

Some apropos quotes from Sir Winston Churchill:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

"Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart."

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. "

I'd say the gentleman had some good insight.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

No. The basis is the desire of each individual to maximize value and to provide the potential for a reward for risk.



No. In the stock market, we look to buy shares in companies that will do well and grow in value (i.e. maximizing value). As these companies do, we share in this growth in value. As we do this, we do not do it at the expense of those whose shares have not grown in value. You are under the impression that the economy is a zero sum game where one may only prosper if another suffers. If this were true, the total value of the stock market would have remained constant since its founding.



Even a perfect system would still have fallen folks involved. In the case of the legal system, the best lawyers are those who have honed their skills to such a level that their services will bring a higher compensation in the marketplace. This does not bring about injustice. Injustice comes as a result of bad law or of good laws being improperly applied.



Again, this is not a zero sum game. In most case, you could distribute the CEO's entire salary among the workers of a company and the individual impact would be sparse. The real problem is the board of directors system that rewards CEOs in spite of poor company performance. As an investor, I see that this system frequently hurts company value.



I agree that this was a consistent prophetic theme. However, the description are always of sinful and illegal acts rather than the combined actions of individuals to pursue increased value.



If it is morally wrong for individuals to pursue increased value, then it is all the more morally wrong for individuals to seek a fullness of joy/happiness/pleasure. But that is precisely what we are commanded to do in Scripture.

A free market economy appeals to this basic desire for happiness that God has instilled in us. Failings occur not because of the system but rather because of how we, in the flesh, choose fleeting pleasures rather than those that last.

Barring a theocracy where Christ alone is the authority, a free market economy is the least immoral system possible on earth.

Well said.

Ed

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Wow. That's kinda funny. Mainly because the opposite is COMMUNISM, which is supposed to be EVIL. The other alternative is socialism, which could sometimes be ok, but remember that this is what Hitler was trying to push. But yeah, basically it sounds like you are pro-socialism, at least some form of it.

Hitler was definitely not a communist. He was a fascist, world of difference. In fact, Hitler invaded Russia, which was a communist country.

 

[EdSutton]

Hitler was definitely not a communist. He was a fascist, world of difference. In fact, Hitler invaded Russia, which was a communist country.

Okay, I'll bite. What was the difference? What was the real difference between Adolph Hitler and "Uncle Joe" Stalin? What was the difference between the German 'death camps' and the Soviet 'death camps', aside from the naming of the ones in the Soviet Union as "gulags"? What was the difference between Unca' Joe overseeing millions put to death under his government and Adolph overseeing millions put to death under his government?

Sounds to me a bit like contrasting "Tweedle Dee Dee" with "Tweedle Dee Dum".

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator, as I see it. And both Communism and Naziism/Fascism are forms of socialism, BTW.

Ed

 

[belvedere]

I don't agree with your statement about the stock market. For every buyer there must be a seller. That's how the system works. The money of those who buy high and sell low is taken by those who buy low and sell high. Of course stock brokers make it not really a zero sum game because they benefit on both sides, something like the house in a casino. If this nearly zero sum attribute of the market weren't the case where would the money come when investors sell at a higher price than they bought? It's a closed system.

The money comes from growth in the company. No, it's not a closed system.

 

[corndogggy]

Hitler was definitely not a communist. He was a fascist, world of difference. In fact, Hitler invaded Russia, which was a communist country.

You're right, I never said that he was. The Nazi regime was pushing a form of socialism, not communism. Hitler actually denounced communism as being evil.

 

[corndogggy]

Okay, I'll bite. What was the difference? What was the real difference between Adolph Hitler and "Uncle Joe" Stalin?

The main difference is the structure of the government. Socialism still has a ruler and makes everybody do stuff. Communism supposedly makes the ruling part of the government mostly disappear and the economic responsibility is supposed to be in the hands of the people more. They're very similar, it's just that the government in socialism usually has more power I believe.

 

[Aaron]

Okay, I'll bite. What was the difference? What was the real difference between Adolph Hitler and "Uncle Joe" Stalin? What was the difference between the German 'death camps' and the Soviet 'death camps', aside from the naming of the ones in the Soviet Union as "gulags"? What was the difference between Unca' Joe overseeing millions put to death under his government and Adolph overseeing millions put to death under his government?

According to Richard Wurmbrand, a Jew, who spent time in both Nazi and Communist Prisons, the suffering in a Nazi prison was a Sunday school picnic compared to the suffering in a Communist prison.

 

[Aaron]

Again, a free Enterprise system is the only system in which a diligent man can enjoy the fruit of his labors, and the slothful man suffers the consequences of his laziness.

 

[gb93433]

Again, a free Enterprise system is the only system in which a diligent man can enjoy the fruit of his labors, and the slothful man suffers the consequences of his laziness.

Or by stealing from others in an unfair competitive situation.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

The money comes from growth in the company. No, it's not a closed system.

The only money coming to stock holders from growth in the company is in the form of dividends but that doesn't enter into the buy/sell transaction. The money that someone gets when they sell a stock comes only from buyers. There are only two sides of the transaction, the buyers and the sellers.

Here's where I think we're getting hung up. If the market always went up in a straight line then sellers would always get more than they paid for their stock and buyers would be assured of doing the same in the future. Of course the market doesn't always go up and even when it is rising there are corrections along the way. After the market crash in 1929 the stock market didn't regain the level before the crash until 1952 or 1953. The crash of '87 was a sudden correction.

Growth in a company might make a stock rise but it doesn't change the basic dynamic between buyers and sellers.

 

[Jonathan]

Socialism also distributes wealth. Some of the countries that have the highest standard of living in the world are what we would call socialistic. In many ways they see themselves as having more freedom than those in the US. They expect to work their entire life but once they retire are well taken care of. Their education is free to those who can make it. Each employee gets one month of vacation in the summer and one week in the winter. The top paid employee does not get 500 times the lowest as so many companies in the U.S.

Can you name some of these countries? Let's discuss the specifics and see if the citizens there really do have it better under socialism.

Something to ponder: Because God gives someone more brains or creativity should he be paid more than another who labors serving the wealthy?

Is the alternative that all be paid the same wage regardless of the effectiveness or value of the work produced? If so, what would motivate the most creative or intelligent to produce life changing advances? China tried to eliminate the creative and intelligent class in the 60s and 70s and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Should the rich be able to live lavishly off of the backs of the poor? Did God design the poor to be abused and serve the rich just so the rich could live lavishly.

Who are these rich who are living lavishly off the backs of the poor?

I would contend that the rich should be giving to equal out the scenario.

History has shown that attempts to force the equal spread of wealth fail. However, I do agree that it is more blessed to give than to receive and those who do give sacrificially are blessed beyond measure. But there is a significant difference between having the government confiscate wealth and sacrificial, voluntary giving.

I remember what Jesus said when he said that the greatest should become the leeast.

Jesus also taught that we are to act with the reward in mind.

Leadership is not about how much money one can accumulate so he can have gold plated faucet handles but about how he can serve others with his wealth. That is what makes Christianity different.

Likewise, the Bible doesn't advocate government compulsion to carry out Kingdom goals. Rather, it describes the joy of giving and living to the Glory of God.

I know a man who is very wealthy who supports missionaries full time. He started and retired as a school teacher. Over the years he invested his money and became wealthy. He has never bought things that were unnecessary. His home is an average home in an average community.

Yet, under the socialism that you appear to advocate, this man's earned wealth (earned by a lifetime of living below his means so that he could invest) would be confiscated in order to give to those who had not lived such lives of stewardship.