Christianity

[RCSaunders]

Are you talking about retarded people? Unless there is some kind of mental defect, anyone who really wants to can learn to read, write, and do simple arithmetic. It doesn't cost money to read and write--just hard work.

Oh, dear...it gets worse.

RC, we're talking about people in the Developing World. I'm afraid you're going to have to leave your First-World bubble to find out how sadly wrong you are. Corrupt governments, constant wars, few schools, no money, no sanitation, theft, death, dirt, and a daily struggle for survival that you cannot possibly imagine...unless you've been there. And the people who suffer are ordinary folks like you and me, but who have grown up without advantages, and have no way of knowing how to get any, or what to do if they had them. Yet, if you give them one crack of hope, they leap through it, and take it with an industry and devotion that none of our spoiled, First World brats ever seem to have.

But you have to see it to believe it.

Go visit Haiti, or Colombia, or Kenya...meet those people. While you're there, do something to help them out. Then tell me how everybody there is just a lazy fool, like you believe.

I never said, "everybody." Many are lazy, but more are simply corrupt and they are universally ignorant and superstitious. I know and deal with people from Haiti, Puerto Rico, Gruatamala, India, Southeast Asia (and have lived there), the Phillipines (and have lived there), and West Africa, who will all tell you the same (which is the reason they left those countries). Every country in the world where poverty reigns is also dominated by the most ignorant of religions and superstitious beliefs and practices. Why don't you do a little study of the Hmong, Cambodians, Thais, Vietnamese, South Africans, Lebanese, and Egyptians (such as those I know personally) who came to this country with nothing and made wonderful productive lives for themselves.

"But it's not their fault," the sentimentalist meddlers cry about the, "disadvantaged." Well, it sure is hell isn't the fault of those, "disadvantaged," who did something on their own to make a life for themselves, which nobody is making a fuss over but are generally condemned and called, "selfish," because they don't want what they worked so hard to produce and make of themselves taken away from them to, "help," (squander on) the, "unfortunate."

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Whether voluntary or involuntary (foreign aid), this principle has proven itself true over and over:

"Do not throw your pearls (what's truly valueable) before swine (those incapable of appreciating value). If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

But the sentimentalist altruists refuse to learn from history.

[Immanuel Can]

Every country in the world where poverty reigns is also dominated by the most ignorant of religions and superstitious beliefs and practices.

Of course. Superstition is one cause of poverty, and government corruption another. Foreign aid of any conventional kind has proved worse than useless -- it's actually toxic, in many cases.

But these are not the people microenterprise depends upon. You need to know about things like "character capital," "trust groups," "financial literacy," and non-governmental alternatives...all of which are basic strategies unique to microfinance. The rate of repayment of loans for such programs exceeds 95%, far higher than loan repayment rates for Western credit cards and mortgages, in fact. So you could make the argument, statistically, that the poor are far more responsible than the rich, ironically.

So it's not at all as you say, once you exclude the inept aid efforts managed by Western governments and their corrupt partner governments. Neither of those parties is inherent to microfinance.

[Belinda]

I don't think of small business enterprises as examples of capitalism.

That's exactly what they are, though. They are ways to create capital, through private ownership.

"Usury" is debt. "Capital" is "surplus value." Even Marx knew that.

And you replied:

"any merchant is in essence a capitalist."

Ummm...

That's just what I said. Microenterprise creates merchants. They're capitalists. And it's a great thing that they are.

It is good that you understand that capitalism proper spectacularly began in Florence, with the famous banking families, in early modern Europe.

[Immanuel Can]

It is good that you understand ....

I just love it when people try that trick.

It's like when they begin with, "Don't forget that..." or "As everybody knows..." or "It's indisputable that..." or "Of course, nobody doubts...", and then they add some highly contentious claim that they want you to become afraid to question lest they immediately accuse you of failing to "know" what everybody "knows."

Phrases like that always alert me to the appearance of a weak proposition.

Capital is actually a much older thing. It's basically the idea of added value...the realization the potential value of a product upon which labour or creativity has been leveraged is often greater than is inherent in either the materials or the labour itself.

[Belinda]

It is good that you understand ....

I just love it when people try that trick.

It's like when they begin with, "Don't forget that..." or "As everybody knows..." or "It's indisputable that..." or "Of course, nobody doubts...", and then they add some highly contentious claim that they want you to become afraid to question lest they immediately accuse you of failing to "know" what everybody "knows."

Phrases like that always alert me to the appearance of a weak proposition.

Capital is actually a much older thing. It's basically the idea of added value...the realization the potential value of a product upon which labour or creativity has been leveraged is often greater than is inherent in either the materials or the labour itself.

I think old Ecclesiastes recommended soft words to dispel wrath. Maybe it's in Proverbs I bet you know.

Anyway I said "capitalism proper" and referred you to the speeded-up evolution of banking in early modern Florence. By 'capitalism' people usually mean shifting money around without any actual goods or services in clear sight.

[Immanuel Can]

By 'capitalism' people usually mean shifting money around without any actual goods or services in clear sight.

That doesn't even make sense. If you're handing over your money who offer you nothing by way of either goods or service, then I suggest you keep a tighter grip on your cash. But that's nothing to do with "capital," per se: that's just a feature of currency exchange: one often hands money to somebody for something "not in clear sight."

You did it the last time you paid for your university classes, did you not? You had received neither goods nor services, and none were "in sight"; and you still paid your tuition. And you probably felt it was a reasonable exchange, too, did you not?

[Immanuel Can]

I think old Ecclesiastes recommended soft words to dispel wrath. Maybe it's in Proverbs I bet you know.

Proverbs: "A soft answer turns away wrath."

But I meant nothing harsh. I was merely entertained.

[Belinda]

I think old Ecclesiastes recommended soft words to dispel wrath. Maybe it's in Proverbs I bet you know.

Proverbs: "A soft answer turns away wrath."

But I meant nothing harsh. I was merely entertained.

Yes, I know.

You wrote:

Capital is actually a much older thing. It's basically the idea of added value...the realization the potential value of a product upon which labour or creativity has been leveraged is often greater than is inherent in either the materials or the labour itself.

I don't oppose capitalism, I oppose some of the effects of unbridled capitalist businesses. Capitalism, just as you describe it, gives power to a limited number of individuals. This power is not ethical when the people who have sold their labour to you don't also benefit from the profits.

Capitalist business is unethical when it thrives on taking natural resources that by virtue of being natural do not belong to the business but to themselves or at most to people who need them for bare survival.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't oppose capitalism, I oppose some of the effects of unbridled capitalist businesses.

Well, everybody does. "Unbridled" anything is automatically a problem.

Capitalism, just as you describe it, gives power to a limited number of individuals.

No, actually; it doesn't "give" anything.

Capitalism is an attitude to market forces, rather than an ideological package. Unlike Socialism, it has no manipulative, utopian promises, nor (in its unmanipulated form) any presumption about who should win and who should lose. It just lets the chips fall where they may, as to successes and failures, gains and losses. But it does not, as Socialism does, insist that the outcome must be forced to be "equal," even nominally. It allows that a business can make or lose money, depending on whether or not it markets a saleable item in a strategic way. Under capitalistic economics, one rises or falls with one's own achievements and the forces of the market itself.

That does mean that some people will probably end up richer than others. But unless some market-subverting strategy has been employed, such as monopolization or price fixing, the idea of Capitalism is that those that prosper will do so on their own competitiveness and ingenuity. Having added more surplus value to the economy, they will have produced the warrant for any disparity.

Of course, all that's in the ideal. As with Socialism, the reality inevitably falls short of the ideal. And in both cases, injustices can ensue. But under Socialism, the injustices are guaranteed: because Socialism inherently means theft at the point of a gun. There's no other way to force "equity" (as Socialists imagine it) to appear, given that the world itself distributes its benefits unevenly, and given that people do not all earn their benefits.

This power is not ethical when the people who have sold their labour to you don't also benefit from the profits.

Heh. So you think that "labour" and "profits" are the same thing...or should be? You don't believe in the value generated by means of invention, ingenuity, investor risk, raw materials, transportation, infrastructure ownership, marketing, manufacture, scale, and management? Marx made the same mistake.

Labour is but one part of the value chain. The total value of a product is tied up in all of the above: and for most of them, the labourer assumes no risk and ponies up no money at all.

Capitalist business is unethical when it thrives on taking natural resources that by virtue of being natural do not belong to the business but to themselves or at most to people who need them for bare survival.

Hmmm...do you really think this is how it goes?

If natural resources + labour were the entire value chain, you might have a case. But what about all of the above?

If we're assuming Evolutionism, and if "bare survival" is the point, then nobody owns (or fails to own) anything. There is only whoever grabbed it first. Suvival-of-the-fittest has no opinion about who owns stuff, or who should.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Capitalism is an attitude to market forces, rather than an ideological package. Unlike Socialism, it has no manipulative, utopian promises, nor (in its unmanipulated form) any presumption about who should win and who should lose. It just lets the chips fall where they may, as to successes and failures, gains and losses. But it does not, as Socialism does, insist that the outcome must be forced to be "equal," even nominally. It allows that a business can make or lose money, depending on whether or not it markets a saleable item in a strategic way. Under capitalistic economics, one rises or falls with one's own achievements and the forces of the market itself.

Market forces are insufficient for men who aim to be kind and useful. One hopes that kind and useful describes most men.

[Immanuel Can]

Market forces are insufficient for men who aim to be kind and useful. One hopes that kind and useful describes most men.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Market forces are a reality. All of us, incluidng the Socialists, have to deal with them. They're not optional. The alternative to paying attention to them is going bankrupt...a thing at which Socialist governments are excellent.

[Belinda]

Market forces are insufficient for men who aim to be kind and useful. One hopes that kind and useful describes most men.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Market forces are a reality. All of us, incluidng the Socialists, have to deal with them. They're not optional. The alternative to paying attention to them is going bankrupt...a thing at which Socialist governments are excellent.

Dealing with market forces includes ethics, unless you are a heartless robot.

[Immanuel Can]

Dealing with market forces includes ethics, unless you are a heartless robot.

All of life involves ethics.

But market forces themselves have no more moral status than laws of gravity or laws of hydrodynamics. They're laws, regularties, forces, not people. "Market forces" are impersonal things. They have no opinions. They're just a description of how things (in this case, the market) actually works. They're not optional for Socialists, and Socialists ignoring of them has no good results for anyone.

Market forces are not optional. Where the ethics come in is in whether or not we respond to the market forces in an ethical way.

[Belinda]

Dealing with market forces includes ethics, unless you are a heartless robot.

All of life involves ethics.

But market forces themselves have no more moral status than laws of gravity or laws of hydrodynamics. They're laws, regularties, forces, not people. "Market forces" are impersonal things. They have no opinions. They're just a description of how things (in this case, the market) actually works. They're not optional for Socialists, and Socialists ignoring of them has no good results for anyone.

Market forces are not optional. Where the ethics come in is in whether or not we respond to the market forces in an ethical way.

Indeed. I agree. That is why I wrote

Market forces are insufficient for men who aim to be kind and useful. One hopes that kind and useful describes most men.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed. I agree. That is why I wrote

Market forces are insufficient for men who aim to be kind and useful. One hopes that kind and useful describes most men.

Well, 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.