I meant that market forces , although they exist,are insufficient reason for men not to alleviate the distress they cause.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:43 pmWell, when one jumps off buldings, one must accept that the law of gravity will come into play.
And when one has any economic relationship, one had better respect market forces, or the same kind of result will ensue.
The problem with Socialism is that it imagines that the market forces can simply be ignored, and governments can do as they see fit, manipulating outcomes and rearranging economic relations, disregarding market forces without consequences. The current disasters in the American economy remind us that that is false.
Market forces are not something that can be "insufficient." They are a reality, like gravity. All we can do is recognize those forces, and keep the woud-be market-manipulators from precipitating us into disaster by failing to respect the rules and realities of economic exchange.
Christianity
Re: Christianity
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Market forces don't "cause" things, anymore than gravity "causes" things. And they don't give "reasons" for anything at all, anymore than the laws of hydrodynamics do. Market forces are just forces. They have no motives, dictates, mandates or opinions. They are just there.
It's what people DO in response to those market realities that makes a difference to whether one has distress or success.
Re: Christianity
Any reality is reality by virtue of its causality.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:35 pmMarket forces don't "cause" things, anymore than gravity "causes" things. And they don't give "reasons" for anything at all, anymore than the laws of hydrodynamics do. Market forces are just forces. They have no motives, dictates, mandates or opinions. They are just there.
It's what people DO in response to those market realities that makes a difference to whether one has distress or success.
I agree "It's what people DO in response to those market realities that makes a difference to whether one has distress or success."
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Well, great.
The problem is especially bad when people pretend market forces don't exist or don't have to be respected.
That's what happens under Socialism: the government starts pretending that it doesn't need to be creating more value than its expending. So it prints dollars it cannot back. It hands out money it does not have, by borrowing it at rates it cannot sustain, or by taxing the people who are actually creating value, so that they become unprofitable and non-functional.
It keeps adding promises...free income, free social safety net, free health care, free education, free immigration settlement, free everything...but "free," for them does not actually mean "free": it means, "bought unsustainably, with money the government doesn't actually have." And it means that inevitably, the poor and the middle class end up eating the bill and suffering the consequences. When the food runs out on the shelves, it's never the rich who starve. The elites never seem to get hurt; they have investments, tax lawyers and offshore accounts they use as buffers. But the ordinary Joe is the one who is bankrupted by the "free" stuff.
That's why, in every case in history, Socialism, when given the reins of the economy, has produced poverty and misery among the middle and lower classes. It has no concern for market forces, and does not ever pay its own bills. And progressively, the economy falls behind and then collapses.
The simple fact about market forces is this: if more value is going out of the economy than is going in, then the economy inevitably bleeds to death. In order to sustain any social programs over the long run, the economy has to be making a good deal more money than it's losing to social programming. It has to be making enough for the private enterprise system to be vigorous, PLUS enough for the social safety net to be sustainable.
If Socialism ever respected market forces, instead of taking over the economy as a comprehensive and consuming ideology, you might find it was sustainable. It needs a strong capitalist economy in order to afford its promises. That's what places like Sweden, Denmark and Canada have found out; and even so, some of their social programs are now in peril, because it takes an awful lot of capitalism to pay for a little Socialism.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
What "premises" would those be, J?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:31 pm Christianity is based on a questionable, unproven premise.
Re: Christianity
My experience of socialist government has not been like that. True, there was austerity after the War when Clement Attlee's socialist government was in power, and there was a lot of bad housing, and poor health among returning servicemen and others. But these were not caused by Attlee's socialist government which raised the health status of the poor who would form the basis of national economic recovery.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:45 pmWell, great.
The problem is especially bad when people pretend market forces don't exist or don't have to be respected.
That's what happens under Socialism: the government starts pretending that it doesn't need to be creating more value than its expending. So it prints dollars it cannot back. It hands out money it does not have, by borrowing it at rates it cannot sustain, or by taxing the people who are actually creating value, so that they become unprofitable and non-functional.
It keeps adding promises...free income, free social safety net, free health care, free education, free immigration settlement, free everything...but "free," for them does not actually mean "free": it means, "bought unsustainably, with money the government doesn't actually have." And it means that inevitably, the poor and the middle class end up eating the bill and suffering the consequences. When the food runs out on the shelves, it's never the rich who starve. The elites never seem to get hurt; they have investments, tax lawyers and offshore accounts they use as buffers. But the ordinary Joe is the one who is bankrupted by the "free" stuff.
That's why, in every case in history, Socialism, when given the reins of the economy, has produced poverty and misery among the middle and lower classes. It has no concern for market forces, and does not ever pay its own bills. And progressively, the economy falls behind and then collapses.
The simple fact about market forces is this: if more value is going out of the economy than is going in, then the economy inevitably bleeds to death. In order to sustain any social programs over the long run, the economy has to be making a good deal more money than it's losing to social programming. It has to be making enough for the private enterprise system to be vigorous, PLUS enough for the social safety net to be sustainable.
If Socialism ever respected market forces, instead of taking over the economy as a comprehensive and consuming ideology, you might find it was sustainable. It needs a strong capitalist economy in order to afford its promises. That's what places like Sweden, Denmark and Canada have found out; and even so, some of their social programs are now in peril, because it takes an awful lot of capitalism to pay for a little Socialism.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
You haven't had one, unless you've lived in Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, or some other such place. They're the only places where Socialism was allowed to rule. It was never the dominant system in the UK, even during Labour regimes. The UK is actually one of the most capitalistic places on earth, and always has been.
Good thing, too: you would never have had any welfare or National Health if Socialism had been in charge. Instead, you'd have had bankruptcy.
Re: Christianity
So what actually does 'cause' things and give 'reasons' for things?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:35 pmMarket forces don't "cause" things, anymore than gravity "causes" things. And they don't give "reasons" for anything at all, anymore than the laws of hydrodynamics do.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:35 pm Market forces are just forces. They have no motives, dictates, mandates or opinions. They are just there.
It's what people DO in response to those market realities that makes a difference to whether one has distress or success.
Re: Christianity
Here is another great example of how life revolved more around money, greed and selfishness, to some, than it did around love, care and protection, for all, in the days when this was being written.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:28 pmYou haven't had one, unless you've lived in Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, or some other such place. They're the only places where Socialism was allowed to rule. It was never the dominant system in the UK, even during Labour regimes. The UK is actually one of the most capitalistic places on earth, and always has been.
Good thing, too: you would never have had any welfare or National Health if Socialism had been in charge. Instead, you'd have had bankruptcy.
As can be continually seen throughout this forum.
Re: Christianity
the premise that God can be touched, the materiality of God, is philosophically incorrect, isn't it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:31 pmWhat "premises" would those be?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:31 pm Christianity is based on a questionable, unproven premise.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Who is saying "God can be touched," or "God is material?" That would be so much "philosophically incorrect" as theologically and factually incorrect, of course.Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:44 pmthe premise that God can be touched, the materiality of God, is philosophically incorrect, isn't it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:31 pmWhat "premises" would those be?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:31 pm Christianity is based on a questionable, unproven premise.
Christianity says, "No one has seen God at any time..." (John 1:18)
Of course, it adds, "...God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him."
So it depends what you're referring to when you say "God."
Re: Christianity
After all, Jesus Christ is worshiped as a God by Christians? One of the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:30 pmWho is saying "God can be touched,"
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Correct.Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:19 pmAfter all, Jesus Christ is worshiped as a God by Christians? One of the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.
Now, one might say, "Well, it's impossible for a human to become God." And Christians would all agree with you. However, if you were to ask the question, "Is it possible for God to incarnate as a man," the answer is obviously going to be different.
Both philosophically and theologically, if we posit the existence of an omnipotent Creator(which, by definition, is what we mean by "God") then what would there be that He cannot do?
Re: Christianity
The point is that God cannot "do" anything, for the One is not material. Action, expenditure of energy, is an attribute of the material.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:26 pmCorrect.
then what would there be that He cannot do?
And in general, the One is not inherent in "maybe", "maybe yes, or maybe not," the One is only actual. For comparison, the regularity of nature is actual, there is no such thing, the law of nature may or may not be, the regularity is unchanged, the One is unchanged.