US Economics - Evangelical and Otherwise

[ET]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

Moved ET’s Acton “Principles" here since it is not exclusively abouyt “usury”.

Understand that the Acton principles are supposed to connect Bible believing “evangelicals’ to “free enterprise” economics ideology but I don’t get get it. Attempt to explain via scripture (and not just isolated verses). Show how the Acton Institute is following the Bible.

[Sandy]

Interesting. Keith and I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of "cheap shots" when it comes to making statements related to the application of Biblical morality to economic principles, yet here's a list of conservative economic values that carries with it the implication, at least by insertion in the discussion, that it is Biblically centered because it is conservative. That's an inaccurate assumption. In fact, Keith asked the question before I had a chance, but essentially, in this list, where is the "Biblical" element, other than it is mentioned and assumed? The second inaccurate assumption is that this is generally the view of "conservative evangelicals." They may be a minority, but there are a lot of conservative evangelicals who are not economic or political conservatives, about 40% of them if you think the polling data is accurate.

My comments in italics.

...12 principles that generally drive the thinking of conservative evangelicals when it comes to economics:
1. Good intentions are often trumped by unintended consequences. "Often" is a subjective term. So is "sometimes" or "rarely" which are terms that I would use. If the fear of unintended consequences drives your thinking, then what are your principles worth?
2. Our current economic and historical context must be taken into account when applying Biblical principles. No. The historical context of the scripture must be taken into account when determining the principle. The principle, once determined, can be applied in any economic or historical context. This statement is the common cop out of Biblical conservatives, when a Biblical principle interferes with what they really want to do.
3. To exploit the poor, the rich need the help of the government. The rich need the government to be neutralized, which can be done by either a) buying politicians or b) pushing the philosophical view that "less government is better government." That removes the constitutional ability of the government to protect the people.
4. We love economic growth because we love babies. Then you must have really loved the Clinton administration.
5. The economy is not a zero sum game. Straw man. That's not a contention anywhere that I'm aware of.
6. Inequality and poverty in America is more often a matter of personal choice than structural injustice. History does not bear this out. Once again, it is a subjective statement "more often," that is an unsupportable contention, and requires a subjective judgment.
7. The best way to compensate for structural injustice is to increase individual freedom. If that were true, we would still have legally segregated schools.
8. Saddling future generations with crippling debt is immoral. O.K. So let's get the politics straight here. Reagan didn't believe that, and neither did either Bush, given their budgets. If you really believe this, then why didn't you hold your own politicians accountable?
9. Social mobility — specifically getting people out of poverty — is infinitely more important than income inequality. You cannot separate these issues. Income inequality keeps people in poverty.
10. Jobs that lead to human flourishing are the most important part of a moral economy. Vague enough, but I see nothing that conservatives do which contribute to this.
11. Free markets are information systems designed for virtuous people. How do you define "virtuous"? And from what Biblical principle is this derived?
12. Free markets are the best way to serve free people. That's an observation, though there are many places in the world where people are free from a political perspective, that are not involved in a free market. But I don't see any particular economic system endorsed by, or modeled in the scripture.

[Haruo]

Funny, I got the impression these were not intended as "Biblical principles", but as mere "principles" that conservative evangelicals bring to their economic thinking and their biblical exegesis. If they were intended as "Biblical principles" then I have to agree the Biblical element is not made clear. I'll have to reread ET's original post and see if I missed something. I think a similar list could easily be drawn up of "principles" (not necessarily or mainly biblically based) that liberal evangelicals bring to their own thinking and interpreting of scripture. None of us approaches the Bible (or political economy) as a tabula rasa...

[ET]

[ET]

[Sandy]

Poverty isn't the only economic issue involved when it comes to the application of ethics and morals. But if that can be used as a measurement, how much help would be forthcoming if a fundamental principle expressed by economic "conservatives" is the belief that poverty and income inequality are more often a matter of personal choice than structural injustice? If your main path to limiting the size, influence and spending of government is to cut its social programs, the most likely response to poverty will be ignoring it, or blaming it on those who are in it.

Consistency is the key to credibility. Politically conservative Christians have passionately defended the right to life, and are just as passionate about defending marriage. But sanctity of life goes well beyond prohibitions on abortion. Stopping short at being passionate about economic injustice, whatever form it takes, makes the passion look politically motivated, rather than a core belief or conviction.

[ET]

In a free society, it is axiomatically true that people of unequal abilities and unequal talents will achieve unequal results if they are treatd equally. Inequality is not automatically a sign of structural injustice. There may be some structural injustice, and in fact I consider "crony capitalism" (and the insanely complex tax code that attempts to engineer society) to be a structural injustice, but I am not nearly as concerned with the results of an economic system as I am about the process that is implemented.

This topic is far deeper than you would care to dig and that I have time to commit to it. I provided resources that address the issues from a Christian view.

Besides, based on previous history in these discussions, I'd be wasting my time and end up being labeled a sell-out of other such term, so for anyone interested I suggest they dig into the IFWE site or subscribe to their newsletter.

[ET]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith when you say " Saying the poor 'choose' poverty is a gigantic cop-out",
Does that mean that you deny that at least in part the majority of the poor remain poor because they make poor choices. Just some examples; Buying lottery tickets. Buying and smoking tobacco products, especially cigarettes . Having large families. Misuse of credit. Regular consumption of alcoholic beverages and use of drugs. Over pampering their kids (buying Reebok s instead of Keds, Buying sugared cereals) Thinking that they need the latest cell phone. Expensive hair cuts perms and treatments. BTW, I am talking about some close relatives.

I am convinced that too often churches enable dependance because handing out cash or vouchers is easier than helping folk make wise choices.

On the other hand, yes I do know some folk whom it seems just can not win for losing. Years ago when I worked in public welfare I did see people make honest effort and make serious strides toward getting off the merry -go-round with success. Some are still doing it, to day.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

KeithE writes in reply to my post "Tagging the poor as always making those bad choices is a cop-out (i.e. an excuse for not helping the poor). First of all, they are predisposed to do so due to culture. Second of all, many culprits prey on those less able to resist the temptation of lotteries, loans. Thirdly, not all make those mistakes as you point out from your own experience.

And Keith who has tagged the poor as always making bad choices? A you noted, I pointed out that not all of the poor make those "mistakes". Perhaps I should have also acknowledged that not all who adopt those unhealthy habits are poor. Therefore I do not believe the poor are any more "predisposed" to making bad choice than any one else. But who are the "culprits" who prey on those less able to resist? Specifically the Lottery, no one twist their arm to buy tickets. I do consider a politicians support for the lottery as a negative when voting. Loans are not always bad How long has it been since you bought a house or a car w/o a loan? but I agree their are "culprits who prey on the unsuspecting (again, not all of whom are poor) by charging exorbitant interest. And as one who spent most of my working life in programs to help the poor break out of their ghetto first as an old age Caseworker ( "workfare" doesn't do much for the elderly), then in a series of Programs developed by the Labor department to assist the "Economically Disadvantaged" before working on a locked Mental Health Unit to assist people who had been assigned there under the Baker Act because some one had persuaded a judge that they where a danger to Society or them selves or both. And finally while Trudy was in Seminary I worked in "a Baptist Sponsored Home for old Ladies". Not all of those served by the last two where poor. And visitors didn't know who where rich and who where well off. Those of us on the staff some times had an Idea because of the clients and residents comments in counseling sessions and by incidental observation of their visitors. Yet all where treated the same. So you have no basis for talking to me about tagging the poor or looking down my nose at them. And oh yes, for the last few years I have served with no remuneration on the Board of directors of a subsidized cost housing project with 27 Apartments that was started by one of our church members (long before we arrived) and one of the laymen from the local Episcopal Church. The board recently voted to have a $6.000 Gazebo erected on the broad park like area at the front of the complex with monies from indivdual sponsors, not a part of the operating budget.

Just how you see Jesus' use if the Brood of vipers phrase to be speaking to the question of why the poor are poor? Jesus did indeed say that we have a responsibility to assist in relief of the poor especially the poor in the church. But he also said the poor you will have with you always.

[ET]

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]

The parallels between this discussion and surface air temperature discussion David and I are having are astounding.

David/ET find some organization (WUWT/Townhall) that truncates a data series (surface air temp/Gini Ratio) at some carefully chosen year (1997/1994) to try to make light of the longer term trend. I notice Townhall choose 1994 to begin the plot (right where the gini ratio has a local peak - look below)


(It appears that the plot above is based on family not individual and that we are using the same Gini data for the US.)

Like the Global Warming data fight, I choose to look at the whole global issue (all countries) while David/ET focus in the US only - fine for the Gini discussion, not fine for the GW discussion.

But the paper by Kitov makes a valid point about the demographic change of the great shift to 2 earners per family we have seen over the last 50 years. But nothing can negate the great rise in CEO compensation/average worker ratio we are witnessing (with no justification) that the Gini ratio does not completely capture.

I need to consider the math /demographics of this in more detail.

By pointing out these parallels I’m in no way saying ET’s/Townhall’s slight of data is anywhere close to the nefarious use of data that David/WUWT regularly employ.

[KeithE]

I'd be responding more except for 2 words - funeral and proposal. I'm only on a dinner break now. Going to Memphis tomorrow for NCAA Stanford game plus gambling with friends. Then back for more proposal next 3 weeks with another out of town trip 4-6 April (anniversary).

Sandy you first response to the 12 principles was excellant.

[ET]

If you had read the article, Keith, it stated the reason for the starting year had to do with the availability of the detailed data from the U.S. Census Bureau.