Socialism in America

[Matt Black]

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron!

Nothing evil about that. This entitlement attitude distorts reasonable thinking and sound judgment.

Whose entitlement attitude are we talking about: that of the employer as outlined by you above or the employee's desire to be able to afford the necessities of life? If it's the latter, I fail to see how that is an 'entitlement attitude'.

 

[mandym]

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron!

Whose entitlement attitude are we talking about: that of the employer as outlined by you above or the employee's desire to be able to afford the necessities of life? If it's the latter, I fail to see how that is an 'entitlement attitude'.

I have no idea how you "fail to see". You believe you are entitled to more of the companies money. The owner cannot be "entitled' because it is already the property of the company.

And the point you keep ignoring is you can go somewhere else if your employer does not pay enough for you to afford the necessities of life.

I will say it again. If you do not like the wage you agreed to then go somewhere else.

 

[Ruiz]

It's not a 'better work ethic' to work for less than you need to adequately live on! Where I come from, that's called wage slavery.

Is it also not immoral to pay more for something than it is worth? Historically that is called poor stewardship. The Puritans said that if you were worth more money, and all things equal, and you could make more money somewhere else then you had a moral obligation to be a good steward of your time to earn more money. They also said that if you paid someone more money than they are worth, you are being a bad steward of your money.

I do not want either the employee nor the employer to be a bad steward. If the employee can make more money, they should. If the employer pays too much, they shouldn't.

Again, if someone does not like their wage, capitalism works for them. They can do things to make themselves worth more money.

 

[Ruiz]

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron!

Whose entitlement attitude are we talking about: that of the employer as outlined by you above or the employee's desire to be able to afford the necessities of life? If it's the latter, I fail to see how that is an 'entitlement attitude'.

I noted the differences in an earlier post as outlined by Marx. It is still an oxymoron as socialism is not an economic theory, but an entire "social" remixing that is anti-Christian. That is, atleast according to the readings I have done on it by Marx and others.

 

[Matt Black]

Is it also not immoral to pay more for something than it is worth? Historically that is called poor stewardship. The Puritans said that if you were worth more money, and all things equal, and you could make more money somewhere else then you had a moral obligation to be a good steward of your time to earn more money. They also said that if you paid someone more money than they are worth, you are being a bad steward of your money.

I do not want either the employee nor the employer to be a bad steward. If the employee can make more money, they should. If the employer pays too much, they shouldn't.

Again, if someone does not like their wage, capitalism works for them. They can do things to make themselves worth more money.

Not all are able to. What about them?

For the record, I'm not advocating that an employer should pay 'more than someone's labour is worth' (to use your phrase_; what I am saying is that where circumstances - for whatever reason - result in that 'worth' being less than that needed for the necessities of life and where the employee is unable to go elsewhere, then the state should step in and render assistance to that employee. That is moral and that is the state complying with the OT prophetic injunctions to which I have already alluded.

 

[Ruiz]

Not all are able to. What about them?

For the record, I'm not advocating that an employer should pay 'more than someone's labour is worth' (to use your phrase_; what I am saying is that where circumstances - for whatever reason - result in that 'worth' being less than that needed for the necessities of life and where the employee is unable to go elsewhere, then the state should step in and render assistance to that employee. That is moral and that is the state complying with the OT prophetic injunctions to which I have already alluded.

That is the beauty of capitalism. That is where charities come into play. Without intervention of government, there would be more money filtered to non-profits and there would not be inflation putting at risk the lowest income people.

My step-brother is autistic (not severe but enough to prevent any real meaningful income). He will never be able to earn a living himself. However, there are many charities that help him and work with him. Now, he has worked at Kroger for 7 years. They pay him a fair wage for his abilities. Yet, charities help out Ryan too. Where I get frustrated is that the other economic theories demands we inflate our money that hurts him, but overall he does very well. He will never be wealthy, but he will be taken care of in his lifetime.

The great thing about capitalism is that if you believe we are called to help out people, you have the freedom and extra money to help. This is truly a great set-up.

 

[Matt Black]

But like I said, per Charles Dickens, the sola charitas method has been tried and found wanting.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron!

The man who wrote the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was a Baptist minister and a socialist.

 

[J.D.]

What if the farmer pays you only $2 an hour for your work? What if you 'agree' this because there are no peach-picking jobs which pay any higher wages? What if the reason for this is that the locak farmers have clubbed together to form a wage-fixing cartel? It is, to use your word, 'preposterous' to say that this is 'win-win' or that this is what was 'agreed'.

See above for an example of 'unequal weights'.

If I had NO job, then that's $2 an hour more than I had before. Collusion is an example of illegal activity which the STATE all too frequently lets their cronies get away with.

Cronyism is not capitalism. One of the legitimate roles of government is to prevent the artificial manipulation of prices in the market through monopolistic practices. But today governments are too often the primary PARTNERS of the "cartel", aiding in the monopolies' siezure of markets. Re: "too big to fail".

 

[J.D.]

But like I said, per Charles Dickens, the sola charitas method has been tried and found wanting.

Socialists always write fiction. Some of it appears in novels; others masquerade as rational arguments.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The great thing about capitalism is that if you believe we are called to help out people, you have the freedom and extra money to help. This is truly a great set-up.

The evil Glaxo invested $300 million on just malaria research, last year.
Socialism does not cure the sick, capitalism does.
Socialism does not spread the Gospel around the globe, capitalism does.
Free market investment and drive for success are both blessed in the parable of the talents. The man who buried his talent was called "evil". His method would leave the sick, sick, and the workers without jobs. Like they are in a lot of socialist places.

 

[Robert Snow]

What about when corporations use their vast supply of money to get politicians to enact laws that favor them over the average working person. When they buy politicians by offering them "jobs" as consultants with extravagant salaries after they have left office. Of course this is contingent on the politicians passing laws that favor their businesses.

To me this is a perversion of what Capitalism is all about.

 

[mandym]

What about when corporations use their vast supply of money to get politicians to enact laws that favor them over the average working person. When they buy politicians by offering them "jobs" as consultants with extravagant salaries after they have left office. Of course this is contingent on the politicians passing laws that favor them over others.

To me this is a perversion of what Capitalism is all about.

You are right it is a perversion but are wrong it is not what capitalism is all about. Currently we have a mix of Capitalism and Keynesian policies.That is what is hurting our economy. You cannot do both. Everyone agrees with what the problems are but the left distorts and exaggerates things in order to manipulate people into changing things altogether. Address the real problems not fabricate them and the economy will bounce back. Until then everything will stay a mess.

 

[Ruiz]

What about when corporations use their vast supply of money to get politicians to enact laws that favor them over the average working person. When they buy politicians by offering them "jobs" as consultants with extravagant salaries after they have left office. Of course this is contingent on the politicians passing laws that favor their businesses.

To me this is a perversion of what Capitalism is all about.

That is not Capitalism as I have defined it (which I define as Austrian Economics). That is the Keynesian Economic model, which I oppose strongly. Unfortunately, Obama and Bush held to Keynesianism and that is a major problem. If you want to argue against that system, don't call it Capitalism, call it by it's rightful name.

 

[Ruiz]

You are right is is a perversion but are wrong it is not what capitalism is all about. Currently we have a mix of Capitalism and Keynesian policies.That is what is hurting our economy. You cannot do both. Everyone agrees with what the problems are but the left distorts and exaggerates things in order to manipulate people into changing things altogether. Address the real problems not fabricate them and the economy will bounce back. Until then everything will stay a mess.

I should have read your post before I posted my response to Robert. For the record, I only read your post after I posted mine

 

[Ruiz]

I wanted to include two super geek videos that explains the differences between Keynesianism and Austrian economics (Hayek). These are great for those of us who love economics. I believe both can go over most people's head, but you will understand much of it too. These were written by a recognized PhD economist.

Video #1. The empasis here is government spending over Hayek's approach is savings. Obviously the video shows the keynes' theory is "most accepted".

Video #2 This is a better video and more understandable and hits on some very practical issues.

 

[Aaron]

It's not a 'better work ethic' to work for less than you need to adequately live on! Where I come from, that's called wage slavery.

If it gives you food and clothes, that's adequate. Anything more is luxury. 1 Tim. 6:8 Just think of how out of line with Amos you are to demand your luxuries.

 

[Robert Snow]

If it gives you food and clothes, that's adequate. Anything more is luxury. 1 Tim. 6:8 Just think of how out of line with Amos you are to demand your luxuries.

Either you have no luxuries or this is hypocritical.

 

[Aaron]

From a Scriptural standpoint, I'm in the lap of luxury. I'm not the one saying it is unjust, and neither am I demanding a luxurious wage from my employer. Blackie's the malcontent in this thread, and you're on the verge.

 

[Matt Black]

Socialists always write fiction. Some of it appears in novels; others masquerade as rational arguments.

Dickens was a socialist? :laugh:Now I've heard it all!

Dickens only wrote about what he observed. But, if you want fact as opposed to fiction, then I would recommend you read the Rowntree Report into poverty of 1901 for further enlightenment.