Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah why give to organizations that help a few when you can give to organizations that enrich themselves by claiming they'll one day help everybody if only given political power.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, it isn't possible. So where now?
quote:I don't need it proven to me. The problem is knowing how, then, to live.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Best, PV.
quote:Humbug. The problem is the few who use too many resources. The planet could carry several times the population of the poorest 80% of the planet.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you can't increase the size of the pie -- and short of space travel we cannot -- then we must limit the number of people eating pie. It is clear that the first thing to do, to achieve more economic equality worldwide, is birth control and lots of it.
quote:Uh huh. But Brenda, you fail to appreciate the cunning subtlety of the plan. If $X stays the same, and Z increases, then $X/Z diminishes. We all get poorer as the population increases. I'm not against birth control, indeed, I'm in favour. A clear indication of how an increasing population diminishes wealth per person might even help that cause.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And suppose John and Marsha have not one child, but twenty. Each of them gets the allocated sum. If we all do this, the carrying capacity of both the financial systems and the very Earth will collapse -- a Malthusian disaster.
quote:That's putting it mildly. As soon as one person wanted something another person had (or had produced), a transaction would have to take place, resulting in the seller having more money than the buyer. What happens then?
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems clear that even if such a distribution could occur, inequalities would spring up quickly.
quote:Even if it would fly, would that 100% estate tax be distributed evenly between every human on the planet? If not then someone would be getting richer, even if it wasn't John and Marsha's child.
Suppose John and Marsha marry. Each has been allotted $20,000. They have one child, who is also allotted $20,000. John and Marsha die and the child inherits their estates and now has $60,000. You could prevent this by having a 100% estate tax. I doubt if that will fly.
quote:Is this a fact?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
quote:So every time anyone has a baby, the family concerned gets richer and the rest of the global population gets a little bit poorer? That would certainly make things interesting!
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But Brenda, you fail to appreciate the cunning subtlety of the plan. If $X stays the same, and Z increases, then $X/Z diminishes. We all get poorer as the population increases. I'm not against birth control, indeed, I'm in favour. A clear indication of how an increasing population diminishes wealth per person might even help that cause.
quote:Not in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Is this a fact?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
quote:Actually, it is. It's just that X changes on a constant basis.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Not in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Is this a fact?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
quote:Let me get this straight...
Originally posted by leo:
Anyone reading this is 'rich' by virtue of having access to a computer.
I irks me that fundamentalists who take everything literally change tack when it comes to Jesus telling a rich man to give away his wealth - it was specific to THAT man and doesn't apply to other people, they say. They don't show the same subtlety when it comes to issues of human sexuality.
The 'proper' Christian shoujld live light to wealth, give to charities, join a socialist political party and repent of any dealings with the Conservative Party.
quote:No. In theory wealth is not a zero sum game. Of course, that does depend on how one measures wealth, and the presuppositions one brings to the table.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Is this a fact?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
quote:The size of the pie has varied over time thanks to economic growth and improvements in agricultural techniques and they have prevented a Malthusian apocalypse. When there has been a recession or depression it is difficult to provide for the population which shows (to me at any rate) that the root cause is economic. Even famine has its roots in economic depression or war.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And suppose John and Marsha have not one child, but twenty. Each of them gets the allocated sum. If we all do this, the carrying capacity of both the financial systems and the very Earth will collapse -- a Malthusian disaster.
If you can't increase the size of the pie -- and short of space travel we cannot -- then we must limit the number of people eating pie. It is clear that the first thing to do, to achieve more economic equality worldwide, is birth control and lots of it.
quote:Definitely naïve.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first, naive pass at this issue notes that poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
quote:Check out http://www.growingpower.org/
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is poor people in big U.S. cities who live on take-out and heavily processed, packaged foods from the corner market, thus producing huge amounts of waste and adding to the burden on the food transportation systems and eventually the healthcare system, after they get sick--because they don't have the money to live somewhere where fresh vegetables etc. are readily available.
quote:Ha Ha. That made me giggle. But, seriously, so many of the poor are dying out of the neglect of the rich, as it is, without much in the way of moral outrage evident, I wonder if we could make the situation any worse by simply apportioning wealth more justly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So every time anyone has a baby, the family concerned gets richer and the rest of the global population gets a little bit poorer? That would certainly make things interesting!
For that matter, every time someone dies the rest of the population gets a bit richer. I can't think of any way that could work out badly...
quote:There are various full translations available free on the internet, such as this one.
Besides the great trilogy, Clement's only other extant work is the treatise Salvation for the rich, also known as Who is the Rich Man who is Saved?. Having begun with a scathing criticism of the corrupting effects of money and misguided servile attitudes towards the wealthy, Clement discusses the implications of Mark 10:25. The rich are either unconvinced by the promise of eternal life, or unaware of the conflict between the possession of material and spiritual wealth, and the good Christian has a duty to guide them towards a better life through the Gospel. Jesus' words are not to be taken literally – we should seek the supercelestial [ὑπερουράνιος] meaning in which the true route to salvation is revealed. The holding of material wealth in itself is not a wrong, as long as it is used charitably, but men should be careful not to let their wealth dominate their spirit. It is more important to give up sinful passions than external wealth. If the rich man is to be saved, all he must do is to follow the two commandments, and while material wealth is of no value to God, it can be used to alleviate the suffering of our neighbor.
quote:Award-winning economist Jeffrey Sachs laid out a very well-regarded
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I'm inclined to agree with you. Where now? We either need to prove it so, or prove it not so. A bald assertion will not persuade, I fear.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, it isn't possible. So where now?
Best, PV.
quote:Blackadder: Baldrick - is there any reason you're still here?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it is poor people who have no health care, forcing them to go to emergency rooms or to let things slide until the only possible treatment is very expensive. It is cheaper, long run, to give health care to children, to have preventative medicine and assessments widely available, to have cavities filled and vaccinations administered.
it is also cheaper to send kids to preschool and school, so that they may grow up to be employable rather than on bread lines.
We all know this. It just doesn't happen, mostly.
quote:Well, not completely true. The many of the people deforesting the Amazon are not using many other resources. Many are not supplying the few with resources either. Your metric was more relevant before the industrial growth of China and India.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Humbug. The problem is the few who use too many resources. The planet could carry several times the population of the poorest 80% of the planet.
quote:I think Clement's answer is it depends on your attitude to your wealth, if you have it. This is like Chaucer's lesson from 1 Timothy 6:10: the root of all evil is the LOVE of money, not having it (radix malorum est cupiditas - where cupidity is the lust for wealth, not the possession of it). It also depends on what you do with it. So if you are "Hanging on" in the sense of clutching it to yourself and not using it as a Christian should, then you're in trouble. But the fact of being rich, richer than most, is not in itself fatal, although it is an obstacle to the Christian life - which is why, not only in the Acts of the Apostles, but also in the monastic tradition, giving everything away and moving towards a communal life of personal poverty is highly valued.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Uh huh, that was all helpful, bad man. So the question is, can we truly be said to love God, and love each other, all the while hanging on to more than our fair share of wealth, while those others clearly suffer in their poverty?
quote:But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
quote:LOL. Maybe we could offer the wealthy, at a duly commercial rate, a boot camp rehabilitation course, in which they get to live on $2.00 per day indefinitely, and learn to cook lentils and rice, and drink insanitary water, and watch their children blinded by bilharzia and wracked by malaria, play in open sewers. Surely there is a business opportunity here, for the billionaires to fund, as a service to their peers.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
quote:The addiction metaphor is, I think, a helpful one. Money (and the power it brings) really is dangerous but even more insidious in the way I think it gets ahold of us. Just like with any addictive drug, you start out choosing it: you choose when to acquire/ hoard/consume just like you choose when to drink/shoot up/light up. But just like at some point-- whether after the 2nd hit or the 5th or the 20th a drug addict is no longer choosing the drug, but the drug is choosing him/her-- similarly, I think there comes a point in our consumption when we are no longer in control, the consumption is. When our stuff is no longer making our lives easier but rather is owning us, as we work more & more hours to have big enough houses/ insurance policies/ bank accounts to store/ maintain/ insure/ repair/ replace all that stuff. And yes, this is more obvious with the multi-billionaires but I don't think it's something that happens only to the uber-rich. I think it happens to most all of us.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:But I think there is a simple starting point, and that is that the Christian should regard wealth as a spiritual poison, or perhaps rather as an addictive drug. Sure, there might be strong individuals who can survive a large dose - but do you want to take the chance? Or maybe your soul will end up cowering in a corner stinking of its own urine, with frightened red-rimmed eyes and shaking hands, saying, "Wealth? Yeah ... I could give it up any time I want ...".
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...There is, I think, no simple answer to this question, even put in such partisan terms....
quote:I think this is a valid question. I'm interested in how the forum would define 'rich'. My own interpretation would probably involve several ideas, like not needing to work, through having independent means, or owning or earning in the higher percentile ranges, or just having a surfeit of money at the end of each month. As for house prices, and expensive areas, well, I suspect if money were more equitably distributed, then house prices would reflect that more sensible economic reality.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So if I own an average house in a major Canadian city I'm a millionaire. On paper. Same is true of many of our countries.
If I want to retire and have no pension plan, I better have 1 or preferably $2 million saved.
So define rich please. It depends on context, i.e., where you live, doesn't it
quote:Hmmm. So, you retire at 65. Ask a 65 year old homeless person how much they have.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So if I own an average house in a major Canadian city I'm a millionaire. On paper. Same is true of many of our countries.
If I want to retire and have no pension plan, I better have 1 or preferably $2 million saved.
So define rich please. It depends on context, i.e., where you live, doesn't it
quote:Your #1 is often but not always true. I've known poor people (by USA standards) who are very destructive. Disdain for proper care of physical things might be part of the reason they are poor.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first,... poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
My second observation is that, if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $, and Z amount of people, a 'fair' distribution would involve everyone getting $X/Z
quote:Sure, the poor can use stuff poorly, or, as noted above, may not have access/able to afford the most environmental-friendly versions of many products/food. But I haven't noticed the rich using their material goods in particularly careful ways-- quite the opposite. A poor person will drive their old Chevy truck til it his 200,000 miles-- the rich guy discards his phone, car, computer (and trophy wife) as soon as the newer flashier version comes out. Both poor and rich probably have about the same percentage of careful v. reckless users, but by virtue of their greater consumption alone, the rich are causing far more environmental impact.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:Your #1 is often but not always true. I've known poor people (by USA standards) who are very destructive. Disdain for proper care of physical things might be part of the reason they are poor.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
My first,... poor people have very little impact on the environment, compared to rich people.
My second observation is that, if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $, and Z amount of people, a 'fair' distribution would involve everyone getting $X/Z
Like the guy who begs for yard work when he's hungry. He had a small piece of land, sold it to buy a riding lawnmower to do his yard jobs with; he so abused the machine within 4 months it was ruined. He said the way it was broken was not covered by warranty. Then he used my lawnmower to cut my grass and broke it. (I told him not to use mine, he pointed out all 3 of his were broken so he had no other choice; I said the day he breaks mine is the last day he works for me. So he hasn't been back. What am I supposed to do with the 4 broken abandoned lawnmowers in my back yard? One mine three his.)
Not many rich are so careless with material things that working equipment quickly and unnecessarily becomes trash.
Yes rich use more stuff, but poor aren't necessarily using gently whatever they get their hands on.
quote:Many talk about people being trapped in the cycle of poverty (which, I think, speaks to the ignorant comments that sometimes one hears from people who like to make out poor people would not be poor if they worked harder, would be able to access fresh vegetables if they were more enlightened, etc) but I think there is a lot of evidence that there is also a similar wealth trap.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Can you find a better way to tell me it's wrong/abusive/wasteful for me to have the air conditioning on when it's 100+ degrees out today and will only briefly get below 80 at the very lowest tonight? I'm genuine puzzled about how to live in my culture but is a less resource consuming way.
quote:Clearly, in purely financial terms you are poor (relative to the global average - and probably by the sound of it within the local context of your life). But, you are also confident that you are able to improve your financial situation.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, I get less than half the income suggested by the $Y/Z formula per year. My net worth, in purely money terms and not including my bits of clutter, is negative.
I am working hard to rectify both these issues! By this time next year, barring catastrophes, I hope to be round about $X/Z net worth, and $Y/Z income per year.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A big part of the issue of poverty isn't directly related to how many dollars one has, or even how much one can purchase with your income (eg: whether someones income is above or below the local 'living wage'). I think the biggest scandel of poverty is that there are vast numbers of people who are incapable of improving their financial situation - they don't have access to education to gain new skills, they're prone to illness (and, hence, loss of productivity) due to poor health care provision, they work hard but can't sell the products of their labour at a price that actually reflects the costs.
In addition to poverty of income, food, housing there is a poverty of opportunity. There are, of course, many causes of poverty. But, those causes include the actions of the wealthy seeking to maintain their privilage - through trade deals that screw the poor, through the support of corrupt governments because they're willing to support unfair trade or oppose another government we don't like, etc.
Certainly as Christians (heck, as decent human beings) we should question our part in maintaining institutionalised poverty, and do our utmost to break the systems that keep so many people at the bottom of the pile in abject poverty. Does that require that we actually give away our wealth? Should we all become Mother Theresas? I'm not sure. But, it certainly means we need to radically address our priorities and values. Something far more than buying Fair Trade and checking if the new shirt we want to buy was made in a sweat shop (though, those are both good things).
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Guilty as charged - we are all caught in original sin/structures.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let me get this straight...
All people with computers are wealthy.
Leo has a computer.
Therefore Leo is wealthy.
As long as Leo owns a computer, Leo remains wealthy and has not sold all that he owns and given it to the poor. Only when Leo is himself poor will he have followed Jesus command to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor. For as long as Leo remains wealthy, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for Leo to enter the kingdom of heaven. Giving to charity and voting socialist seems easy not hard. Cheap grace that is. Claiming Jesus is really talking to conservatives is far less defensible that the claim that Jesus was talking only to the rich young ruler which can actually be supported by the text.
quote:Yeah why give to organizations that help a few when you can give to organizations that enrich themselves by claiming they'll one day help everybody if only given political power.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Guilty as charged - we are all caught in original sin/structures.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let me get this straight...
All people with computers are wealthy.
Leo has a computer.
Therefore Leo is wealthy.
As long as Leo owns a computer, Leo remains wealthy and has not sold all that he owns and given it to the poor. Only when Leo is himself poor will he have followed Jesus command to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor. For as long as Leo remains wealthy, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for Leo to enter the kingdom of heaven. Giving to charity and voting socialist seems easy not hard. Cheap grace that is. Claiming Jesus is really talking to conservatives is far less defensible that the claim that Jesus was talking only to the rich young ruler which can actually be supported by the text.
However I did say 'live LIGHT to wealth'
And I'd amend 'give to charities' since they only paper over the cracks and don't get to the causes of inequality. Better to give to pressure groups and political parties.
quote:One of the things I like about the idea of universal entitlement to $X/Z is the result that it allows each of us to own a computer, and a broad band connection, as of right. I do not see a connected computer as a luxury, more in the way of a tool for living, allowing us to access many people, markets and opportunities for the betterment of us all.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Guilty as charged - we are all caught in original sin/structures.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let me get this straight...
All people with computers are wealthy.
Leo has a computer.
Therefore Leo is wealthy.
As long as Leo owns a computer, Leo remains wealthy and has not sold all that he owns and given it to the poor. Only when Leo is himself poor will he have followed Jesus command to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor. For as long as Leo remains wealthy, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for Leo to enter the kingdom of heaven. Giving to charity and voting socialist seems easy not hard. Cheap grace that is. Claiming Jesus is really talking to conservatives is far less defensible that the claim that Jesus was talking only to the rich young ruler which can actually be supported by the text.
However I did say 'live LIGHT to wealth'
And I'd amend 'give to charities' since they only paper over the cracks and don't get to the causes of inequality. Better to give to pressure groups and political parties.
quote:This is a good question. It seems that countries have decided this in different ways, by taxation policies and redistributing money from those with more to those with less, at least in theory. In practice, it seems to be that the taxation goes go whatever the gov't thinks it good policy or good for their political purposes. Hence in Canada, you can get taxation money to extract things from the ground like oil or minerals, or to hire people or build something related to 'job creation', but it is more difficult to get money for direct aid to people in need. The unfortunate trend has been to let corporations decide what charities require support by allowing them to sponsor them, versus taxing the money away from the corporations and deciding as a government what to support. This puts social policy in the hands of private industry. Not good for unattractive groups like homeless, mentally ill, teenagers, single parent families. Thus we get corporate support for sport programs for young people who can't afford to play, but we don't get them fed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In your opinion, do you have more than your fair share, less of your fair share, or just your fair share? How did you determine your answer? Who should ultimately make the determination?
quote:A further article says this:.
The goal of the program...was to find out whether a guaranteed income would improve health and community life. ... overall, hospitalizations in Dauphin declined relative to the control group," "We also looked at accidents and injuries, and they also declined. You can argue that accident and injury hospitalizations are strongly related to poverty."
quote:So how about the issue of being rich becoming tied directly to the dealing with poverty. Thus rich or being wealthy might be okay if there isn't suffering from poverty?
Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families. The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated.
quote:I think this is exactly right. I have no problem with people being rich. I want everyone rich. I only have a problem with some being rich, while others starve. And then claiming to be Christian.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus rich or being wealthy might be okay if there isn't suffering from poverty?
quote:Which, to be fair, would be almost every Western Christian.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I think this is exactly right. I have no problem with people being rich. I want everyone rich. I only have a problem with some being rich, while others starve. And then claiming to be Christian.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus rich or being wealthy might be okay if there isn't suffering from poverty?
Cheers, PV.
quote:My point was that, other than the homeless, however much we struggle (and we do) almost every Western Christian really does have at least some disposable income-- even if it's just $4 or $5 every week or so for a latte. And, given that there are children dying in the developing world for lack of a $5 vaccine or a $3 bed net, means that we are in fact living in at least relative wealth while others are starving.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, but I am not getting at most western Christians, many of who struggle each month to meet the bills, save for retirement, pay off the mortgage, and so on. There is wealth, and an excess of wealth.
Best wishes, PV
quote:And in our society, the addiction is incredibly difficult to escape. Society is structured to addict you; I think this is an aspect of what the Pope has recently criticized. It's not merely addiction to consumption, either: if you want to be secure in your old age, in a society where job security cannot be taken for granted, and Social Security is insolvent in the long run, and employer-provided pensions are increasingly scarce and unreliable, and retirement savings accounts are subject to the vagaries of the capital markets, it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line between prudently protecting against destitution in old age and selfish, greedy miserliness. But every dollar hoarded that isn't really needed to protect ourselves against our own future suffering is a dollar that could have been spent to relieve someone else's immediate suffering. A more secure social safety net would not only have immediate benefits for the neediest members of society; it would also have even wider secondary benefits in terms of encouraging a more willing generosity and largeness of spirit among those who are more comfortable but wary of the future.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The addiction metaphor is, I think, a helpful one. Money (and the power it brings) really is dangerous but even more insidious in the way I think it gets ahold of us. Just like with any addictive drug, you start out choosing it: you choose when to acquire/ hoard/consume just like you choose when to drink/shoot up/light up. But just like at some point-- whether after the 2nd hit or the 5th or the 20th a drug addict is no longer choosing the drug, but the drug is choosing him/her-- similarly, I think there comes a point in our consumption when we are no longer in control, the consumption is. When our stuff is no longer making our lives easier but rather is owning us, as we work more & more hours to have big enough houses/ insurance policies/ bank accounts to store/ maintain/ insure/ repair/ replace all that stuff. And yes, this is more obvious with the multi-billionaires but I don't think it's something that happens only to the uber-rich. I think it happens to most all of us.
In a recent sermon, a friend noted this reflected in 1 Tim. 6:9, in which Paul's description of those who seek after wealth sounds precisely like a description of the course of an addiction:
"people... fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." [/QB]
quote:I think that's all fair comment. Which is why, in the OP, I framed the questions as I did. I don't want every Christian beating themselves up for not doing more, unless they really can afford to do more, and ought to do more. I don't begrudge anyone the occasional latte! And so, despite the naive simplicity of my post, it was aimed at shifting the onus of action towards the direction in which it ought to lie.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:My point was that, other than the homeless, however much we struggle (and we do) almost every Western Christian really does have at least some disposable income-- even if it's just $4 or $5 every week or so for a latte. And, given that there are children dying in the developing world for lack of a $5 vaccine or a $3 bed net, means that we are in fact living in at least relative wealth while others are starving.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, but I am not getting at most western Christians, many of who struggle each month to meet the bills, save for retirement, pay off the mortgage, and so on. There is wealth, and an excess of wealth.
Best wishes, PV
Not meaning at all to diminish the struggles of everyday working-class Westerners, or to let the egregious excess of much of the 1% go unchallenged. But so often we define "relative wealth" by looking up the ladder rather than down the ladder. I would suggest there is likely no one on this forum who couldn't afford to do at least a bit more for the "least among us", myself very much included.
quote:It's a hard balance, though, isn't it? You're absolutely right that we ought not to beat ourselves up over the small indulgences we allow ourselves. Such simple pleasures are part of what God intends life to be. But on the other hand, I think our constant looking to "someone else"-- someone richer, someone with more obvious extravagances, who could do more than we could-- lets us off the hook. It's really a balance that each of us needs to seek, prayerfully, I think-- between obsessive joy-stealing guilt on the one hand, and complacent mindless consumption on the other.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I think that's all fair comment. Which is why, in the OP, I framed the questions as I did. I don't want every Christian beating themselves up for not doing more, unless they really can afford to do more, and ought to do more. I don't begrudge anyone the occasional latte! And so, despite the naive simplicity of my post, it was aimed at shifting the onus of action towards the direction in which it ought to lie.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:My point was that, other than the homeless, however much we struggle (and we do) almost every Western Christian really does have at least some disposable income-- even if it's just $4 or $5 every week or so for a latte. And, given that there are children dying in the developing world for lack of a $5 vaccine or a $3 bed net, means that we are in fact living in at least relative wealth while others are starving.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Yes, but I am not getting at most western Christians, many of who struggle each month to meet the bills, save for retirement, pay off the mortgage, and so on. There is wealth, and an excess of wealth.
Best wishes, PV
Not meaning at all to diminish the struggles of everyday working-class Westerners, or to let the egregious excess of much of the 1% go unchallenged. But so often we define "relative wealth" by looking up the ladder rather than down the ladder. I would suggest there is likely no one on this forum who couldn't afford to do at least a bit more for the "least among us", myself very much included.
Cheers, PV.
quote:But the OT also mentions the year of Jubilee, when everything gets redistributed.
Originally posted by balaam:
$X/Z is a red herring. Old Testament law and the book of Ruth mention gleaning. In the context of an agricultural society the landowners (ie the rich) were not to reap into the corner of the fields, but to leave it for the poor to gather. This way the rich were allowed to get rich, whilst the poor had something to prevent them from starving.
quote:You see, this is what's hard for me. I know any financial advisor would be shaking his/her head at us for our lacks, and they scare me as well. But where do you call it quits? Mr. Lamb has a small pension, and I have a micro-pension some day (assuming the place is still there!), and we have a small bit of Social Security, which is also rocky. Oh, and a fraction of a house.
Originally posted by fausto:
...if you want to be secure in your old age, in a society where job security cannot be taken for granted, and Social Security is insolvent in the long run, and employer-provided pensions are increasingly scarce and unreliable, and retirement savings accounts are subject to the vagaries of the capital markets, it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line between prudently protecting against destitution in old age and selfish, greedy miserliness. But every dollar hoarded that isn't really needed to protect ourselves against our own future suffering is a dollar that could have been spent to relieve someone else's immediate suffering.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:That's a jaundiced view - pressure groups don't have so much money that they can 'enrich themselves'.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah why give to organizations that help a few when you can give to organizations that enrich themselves by claiming they'll one day help everybody if only given political power.
quote:Charitable work is, and always has been, necessary, regardless of the political system.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Well, of course Gates and Buffet are to be valued, honoured and emulated. But if their wealth had been more evenly distributed in the first place, their charitable work might not be so necessary.
Cheers, PV.
quote:They created their wealth by their own licit activities. I don't see how the wealth could have been more evenly distributed in the first place.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Well, of course Gates and Buffet are to be valued, honoured and emulated. But if their wealth had been more evenly distributed in the first place, their charitable work might not be so necessary.
quote:Licit, yes. In the case of Bill Gates, Microsoft has a history of predatory and anti-competitive activities that more or less crushed other OS and browser providers (excluding Apple, who have their own questions to answer). Buffet, it has to be remembered, invests other people's money, not just his own, and hasn't necessarily behaved very well in the past.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:They created their wealth by their own licit activities. I don't see how the wealth could have been more evenly distributed in the first place.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Well, of course Gates and Buffet are to be valued, honoured and emulated. But if their wealth had been more evenly distributed in the first place, their charitable work might not be so necessary.
Moo
quote:If Buffet and MS skirt morality at times (I have no personal knowledge of their morality or lack of), that just follows the path of the railroad barons and the timber barons and steel barons with their low wage high risk jobs and company owned towns that kept the worker in debt to the corporation so he couldn't seek a job elsewhere, and made the family homeless if he died on the job. All licit of course. Legal is not the determiner of moral.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Licit, yes... Microsoft has a history of predatory and anti-competitive activities... Buffet...hasn't necessarily behaved very well in the past.
Originally posted by Moo:
They created their wealth by their own licit activities.
That the pair have latterly turned to altruism is a genuinely good thing, but who's to say that their wealth, spread around to more people, would not have done, or would do in the future, better?
quote:There are other countries, particularly in Northern Europe, with different tax systems/ social benefits that could have very effectively redistributed that wealth. Arguably, I believe they would have been just as successful in those systems as they were in the more brutal capitalism of the US. And, as generous as both have been (and that is laudable) I believe their wealth would have benefitted even more people in such a system.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:They created their wealth by their own licit activities. I don't see how the wealth could have been more evenly distributed in the first place.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Well, of course Gates and Buffet are to be valued, honoured and emulated. But if their wealth had been more evenly distributed in the first place, their charitable work might not be so necessary.
Moo
quote:Probably the most misquote verse in the entire Bible.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the point that our time on this earth is limited. The poor we have with us always. I could spend my entire life, every waking moment, helping them and the need would not go away.
There are things that only I can do, things that only I can say or paint or write. I have some responsibility to them. If I do not bring them to life, they will never exist.
quote:Pressure groups exist to stroke the rather large egos of their members. Left wing pressure groups did quite a fine job helping Margaret Thatcher get elected. She of course restructured your economy. BLair ignored those same pressure groups. Now, you have Cameron for another five years. Might as well give your money directly to the Tories.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That's a jaundiced view - pressure groups don't have so much money that they can 'enrich themselves'.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah why give to organizations that help a few when you can give to organizations that enrich themselves by claiming they'll one day help everybody if only given political power.
Charities may 'help a few' but they allow governments to get away from restructuring the economy so the majroity suffer - helpg the few makes everyone else worse off.
quote:If the amount of $$ you have tied up in your house puts you in the top 1% globally, then it would seem pretty clear that you could easily downsize and use the $$ to help the world's poor.
Originally posted by rufiki:
I think the statistic about 1% having 50% of the world's assets is slightly misleading. To be in the 1%, you only need US$800,000 or £530,000, and that includes the value of your house. $800K/£530K is a lot of money, but not once you start looking at property prices in many western cities. If most of your wealth is tied up in the house that you live in, it's hard to see how you can use it to help the world's poor.
quote:I think this is how most of us define wealth, which is precisely the problem. Most wealthy people live their lives in splendid seclusion, surrounded by similarly wealthy people. If you live in Bel Air or Beverly HIlls, chances are you'll go all your life w/o ever venturing a few miles over to skid row where you'll see the largest concentration of homeless anywhere in the Western world. We will never address the systemic causes of poverty until we stop defining wealth by our immediate neighbors.
Originally posted by Fineline:
I see it more as not living in a way that is richer than those around you - which will vary according to where you live and the people you are surrounded by.
quote:Yes, that's my point. It's not just billionaires who live in isolation. Middle income people tend to live in middle income neighborhoods; lower income people tend to live in lower income neighborhoods-- for obvious reasons. Which means their kids tend to go to school and play soccer and generally hang out with kids from similar-income families. Middle income people tend to work in middle income professions where their colleagues have similar incomes-- same with upper and lower income.
Originally posted by Fineline:
True, although that wasn't my definition of wealth but of what I see as our responsibility as Christians (applying it practically to my own life, and that of the lives I assume most people here have - I wasn't imagining billionaires here on the Ship). The fact that people can of course choose to live in seclusion, and often the much wealthier people are surrounded by others like themselves, is why I added the bit about sharing what we have, and how that is harder the more one has.
But I still think it is about relativity for all of us. I have noticed that very few people see themselves as rich, even though they can have an income of twenty times what someone else in their country earns - and to me this is also a problem. Surely it's equally dangerous to see wealth as only an issue for the billionaires, because then we evade our own responsibility.
quote:You are right, people do say these kinds of things. I was interviewing an epidemiologist a while back who said that provision of soap would be the cheapest way to save many lives.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Anyway, making that difference does not necessarily mean chucking money at spendthrift ne'er-do-wells. Better by far to fund enabling projects. On one course I followed, on this topic, the startling claim was made that simply deworming children regularly results in better school performance, better work prospects, and some 20% increase in their pay 10 years into adulthood. Providing malaria nets, nutritious school lunches, free spectacles, etc, might all be expected to have similar, if less dramatic, outcomes.
Cheers, PV.
quote:I'm all for handwashing, too.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You are right, people do say these kinds of things. I was interviewing an epidemiologist a while back who said that provision of soap would be the cheapest way to save many lives.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Anyway, making that difference does not necessarily mean chucking money at spendthrift ne'er-do-wells. Better by far to fund enabling projects. On one course I followed, on this topic, the startling claim was made that simply deworming children regularly results in better school performance, better work prospects, and some 20% increase in their pay 10 years into adulthood. Providing malaria nets, nutritious school lunches, free spectacles, etc, might all be expected to have similar, if less dramatic, outcomes.
Cheers, PV.
The problem is twofold. First these claims are disputed and extracted from massive datasets. Personally I doubt that handwashing-with-soap can really be considered without also considering the provision of clean water. Similarly with deworming - some doubt the quality of the data and the magnitude of the effect.
Second, though, is that thinking about deworming is the lowest possible hanging fruit. Does it make sense to deworm without also investing in sanitation and water infrastructure projects (which one study suggested recently fail more than a third of the time)? How quickly are dewormed children reinfected (very quickly, it seems). What about all the other aspirations and needs of these communities?
Thus a simple cheap solution very quickly becomes extremely morally complicated.
Personally, I believe in handwashing promotion projects, which are woefully underfunded. But is this a better use of money than that put by the Gates Foundation into many underfunded diseases? I am not sure that follows.
quote:According to this article you need $2,700,000 to be in the global top 1%. If this is so, I think it quite enough to own a nice house, a couple of cars, travel on holiday, educate your children privately, and still have enough left over to change the world for the better.
Originally posted by rufiki:
I think the statistic about 1% having 50% of the world's assets is slightly misleading. To be in the 1%, you only need US$800,000 or £530,000, and that includes the value of your house. $800K/£530K is a lot of money, but not once you start looking at property prices in many western cities. If most of your wealth is tied up in the house that you live in, it's hard to see how you can use it to help the world's poor.
quote:I wouldn't say moving into a poorer area than you can afford 'violates' it. But equally, I don't think all Christians are necessarily obliged to do that, or that it's necessarily the best thing for all Christians to do. Nor do I think that it's 'the only way' to expose people to those living on a lower income. Most people's neighbours - the people who live in the homes around theirs - are not the people they spend most time with.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The only way around that-- to have more exposure to people who are living below your income level-- is to violate what you've just said is our "responsibility as Christians".
quote:Yes trials have shown different things because it is hard to do controls on behaviour change. A recent handwashing trial showed an effect of washing with soap, but this was achieved with workers visiting households on a weekly basis and offering free soap. The reality is that this is hard and expensive work and that this means rollout is hard to do.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The study is bound to be disputed. That is the way science proceeds. But this result was obtained by a randomised controlled trial, not a huge dataset.
quote:Thanks for the platitude. Clearly the person who was without soap is not suddenly prosperous in the presence of soap. Correlation is not causation.
And I'm sure sanitation and a hygienic environment are also vital. Meanwhile, we have to leverage our way forward, getting most bang for our sparse bucks, and boot-strapping our way into prosperity for all.
Cheers, PV
quote:Thinking more about this, this is simply something I have not experienced in the kinds of jobs I have done. When I worked as a health care assistant, I worked not only with other health care assistants, but also nurses and other health care professionals, as well as doctors. Some of the agency nurses I worked were earning a lot of money - they would come and do night shifts, which were extra money, as well as their day jobs. Some colleagues had spouses with high incomes. Others were single mothers. It was really varied. Similar with working in a school - teaching assistants get very low pay, meal time assistants get lower, and cleaners even lower, while teachers get higher pay, which varies with their position, and the management team get even higher pay. Again, some colleagues are single parents, others have high income spouses, and all sorts in between.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Middle income people tend to work in middle income professions where their colleagues have similar incomes-- same with upper and lower income.
quote:I am sorry you feel insulted. Clearly you are more sophisticated than me. Nevertheless, I have found it necessary in discussion forums to spell out my points, for the benefit of all contributors, rather than merely allude to them, for the benefit only of the more intelligent and/or better educated.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thanks for the platitude. Clearly the person who was without soap is not suddenly prosperous in the presence of soap. Correlation is not causation.
quote:The point is that whilst people with soap and/or deworming do better in life, that's a correlation not a causative method to determine funding of projects.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am sorry you feel insulted. Clearly you are more sophisticated than me. Nevertheless, I have found it necessary in discussion forums to spell out my points, for the benefit of all contributors, rather than merely allude to them, for the benefit only of the more intelligent and/or better educated.
Best wishes, PV.
quote:PV, so is this not about applying it to our own lives if our net worth is less than a million dollars? So the relative wealth of someone who might earn, say, $500,000 compared to someone who might earn $10,000 is not relevant for this particular discussion, because neither have absolute wealth or poverty? Are you wanting us to discuss how we personally can influence the absolutely wealthy, rather than how we use our own wealth?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I was careful in the OP to talk in terms of absolute poverty, the level of poverty at which we cannot sustain ourselves, fall into malnourishment and illness, and eventually die of starvation or preventable disease. From the discussion, it seems we also need a definition of absolute wealth, to satisfy the uncertainty of contributors around this issue. So let me pluck an arbitrary figure out of the ether. Let us consider anyone with a net worth in excess of $1,000,000 as absolutely wealthy.
quote:But some assets, such as a house, do not yield investment income. I chose to buy an expensive house because of the location. I can walk to downtown, to the bank, to the post-office. The town library is almost on my doorstep. My actual income is relatively small.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
From the discussion, it seems we also need a definition of absolute wealth, to satisfy the uncertainty of contributors around this issue. So let me pluck an arbitrary figure out of the ether. Let us consider anyone with a net worth in excess of $1,000,000 as absolutely wealthy. Invested at 2%, this amount of money would yield $20,000 pa, (which corresponds to $Y/Z), without the necessity to do any paid work, at all. And that is enough to live on, quite comfortably, without the temptation to extravagance or profligacy.
quote:That is interesting. I'm not sure about the righteous anger - I'm not disagreeing, but I'm simply not sure. I see a lot of posts on Facebook, for instance, where people rant about the selfish rich, and it often the ranting people seem to see themselves as good people who are not like this - but then they have never been terribly rich, so how do they know, truly, what they'd do if they were in this position? Or sometimes they are actually living pretty comfortable, even self-indulgent, lives themselves, and yet they seem to see their own lives as irrelevant. So I wonder if sometimes righteous anger can take people's focus off their own responsibilities - easy and convenient to see others as the rich people.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Otherwise, I think we need a degree of righteous anger in respect of the selfish rich. I think we need a global culture that is less subservient to wealth, less deferential to the wealthy, less acquiescent to inequality.
quote:The problem is that any capital gain is theoretical until the house is sold. It does not provide any income. Actually, the house is an income drain because of taxes, insurance and maintenance.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, you choose an expensive house. OK, so you don't pay rent. And win capital gain as house prices inexorably rise. Seems a sensible investment to me. How you spend your $1,000,000 is up to you.
quote:Like I said, how you spend your $1,000,000 is up to you. Maybe an expensive house is not the best idea, after all.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:The problem is that any capital gain is theoretical until the house is sold. It does not provide any income. Actually, the house is an income drain because of taxes, insurance and maintenance.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, you choose an expensive house. OK, so you don't pay rent. And win capital gain as house prices inexorably rise. Seems a sensible investment to me. How you spend your $1,000,000 is up to you.
Moo
quote:I agree, the question of where one lives is complex, with many factors involved, which will vary for everyone. I also chose my house for convenience of location - so I could walk to the places I needed to get to, as I don't drive, and find public transport difficult. Mine was not an expensive house, but it's also bigger than I need - but I figured it made more sense to buy a bigger home, because I could rent out rooms to supplement my income if necessary.
Originally posted by Moo:
But some assets, such as a house, do not yield investment income. I chose to buy an expensive house because of the location. I can walk to downtown, to the bank, to the post-office. The town library is almost on my doorstep. My actual income is relatively small.
quote:I think this is the heart of the issue. And unfortunately I think even Jesus's teaching on the point is equivocal. On the one hand, he told the rich young ruler to give away all his possessions -- a daunting challenge -- and praised the impoverished widow who donated even her mite to the Temple. On the other, his own ministry apparently depended on the support of friendly patrons and benefactors such as Mary, Martha, Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene, without whose sustainable wealth he could not have continued, so from that perspective wealth in itself would not necessarily seem to be inherently wrong in an absolute sense; perhaps it matters more how you use it than whether you have it.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
4. But some people are so rich, they can make a significant difference, by themselves, and are morally obliged to do so.
5. A lot of the discussion has been about the boundaries involved: when is one absolutely poor, or morally entitled to keep what they have for themselves, or so rich that the rest of society has a just claim on their wealth?
quote:All of this I think just illustrates my point-- that defining wealth only in comparison to those around you (which is what most of us do) is problematic, and tends to lull us into a false complacency precisely because most of us don't have much contact with the poorest of the poor. This isn't just true in global terms, here in L.A. most people don't have much contact with the homeless, even when they are only a few miles from their own homes. It's a form of relative ethics, "I'm not as bad as that person..." that misses the whole point of Christian ethics, which is not at all about being better/worse or more or less generous/greedy than the guy next door. Christian ethics is all about coming to believe that living God's way, led by the Spirit, is the best possible way. In this case, that living a life of generosity is the best way we could possibly live.
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:I wouldn't say moving into a poorer area than you can afford 'violates' it. But equally, I don't think all Christians are necessarily obliged to do that, or that it's necessarily the best thing for all Christians to do. Nor do I think that it's 'the only way' to expose people to those living on a lower income. Most people's neighbours - the people who live in the homes around theirs - are not the people they spend most time with.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The only way around that-- to have more exposure to people who are living below your income level-- is to violate what you've just said is our "responsibility as Christians".
Also I'm not sure that choice of home was specifically what I was talking about either - that is only one element of how one chooses to live. Different people choose to invest different proportions of their income into their home. Some people spend less on their home so they can spend more on other things that are more important to them, and others spend most of their income on their home, because where they live is their priority. In the light of that, I'm not really sure what 'living below one's means' means - but if one is also giving to others, then one is not using everything one has on oneself.
Someone could live in a home cheaper than what they can afford, and have disposable income to give to help those living in poverty. Alternatively, they could choose to put a big proportion of their income on a lovely big house and then use that house for hospitality for a group of underprivileged young people, or maybe provide affordable (or even free) accommodation to people in need. There are many ways of giving - money is not the only way.
To put this into tangible terms, in terms of how I understand poverty, I will give the example of myself to explain what I meant. I am on a very low income, and I live in a cheap ex-council terraced house in a very cheap area in the UK. But my home would be considered incredibly rich and luxurious compared to, say, mud huts or shanties of people living in some developing countries. I don't think my Christian responsibility is to sell my house and build a mud hut in the city I live in. Nor do I think God is calling me to live in a country where people live in mud huts (although I have considered it). You could say I'm both rich and Christian if you compare me with people living in extreme poverty in developing countries. I don't see my home as comflicting with my faith. I am living as a Christian in the UK, which is where I happened to be born.
quote:I just love it when Jesus lets us work things out for ourselves! It stretches us, and our societies, to figure out what is good, and right, and just, and noble, and true, as He was. And life wouldn't be half so much worth the living, if He had simply laid down Law.
Originally posted by fausto:
And unfortunately I think even Jesus's teaching on the point is equivocal.
quote:Indeed. I think a lot of subsequent Christian traditions have tried in various ways to lay down the Law for us, so that we can avoid rising to the challenges he left us, and I think that is regrettable.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I just love it when Jesus lets us work things out for ourselves! It stretches us, and our societies, to figure out what is good, and right, and just, and noble, and true, as He was. And life wouldn't be half so much worth the living, if He had simply laid down Law.
Originally posted by fausto:
And unfortunately I think even Jesus's teaching on the point is equivocal.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Yes. Reducing this or any other moral issue to simplistic black-and-white rules, whether it's tithing 10% or living on 80% of your income, or any other simplistic answer to the problem of global poverty, leads to the exact same thinking the Pharisees were prone to. Thinking that faith is all about "following rules" and being a generous person is all about meeting some arbitrary mark so that we can point to this person and say "righteous" and that one and say "not righteous." Faith, and Christian ethics, are really about leaning into the heart of God. It will/should change us-- but in ways that are not easily reducible to that sort of simplistic rule-keeping. The heart of God is generous-- so when we follow Jesus we should expect to become like him-- i.e. generous. But again, not in ways that are prone to simplistic formulas.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:Indeed. I think a lot of subsequent Christian traditions have tried in various ways to lay down the Law for us, so that we can avoid rising to the challenges he left us, and I think that is regrettable.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I just love it when Jesus lets us work things out for ourselves! It stretches us, and our societies, to figure out what is good, and right, and just, and noble, and true, as He was. And life wouldn't be half so much worth the living, if He had simply laid down Law.
Originally posted by fausto:
And unfortunately I think even Jesus's teaching on the point is equivocal.
Cheers, PV.
quote:I wasn't using the OT as a guide to anything, but as an example (historical or literary, take your choice) that equal distribution (regardless how the assets distributed were obtained) quickly becomes unequal possession.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Belle Ringer:
You missed the parts about Joshua killing the local inhabitants and sometimes even their goats.I don't think the OT is any guide to anything reasonable.
quote:Hi cliffdweller. I'm not sure how everything I said has illustrated exactly what you're saying, when you were apparently disagreeing with me. What was it that you were disagreeing with? Or are you not disagreeing with me any more?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of this I think just illustrates my point-- that defining wealth only in comparison to those around you (which is what most of us do) is problematic, and tends to lull us into a false complacency precisely because most of us don't have much contact with the poorest of the poor.
quote:That's an excellent question. My response is not directly about land distribution, but about how public and shared lands, and publicly owned industry can work for generations if there is proper will to make it work.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What has been the experience in any modern countries that attempted land redistribution?
quote:Yet more jaundice.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Pressure groups exist to stroke the rather large egos of their members. Left wing pressure groups did quite a fine job helping Margaret Thatcher get elected. She of course restructured your economy. BLair ignored those same pressure groups. Now, you have Cameron for another five years. Might as well give your money directly to the Tories.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That's a jaundiced view - pressure groups don't have so much money that they can 'enrich themselves'.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah why give to organizations that help a few when you can give to organizations that enrich themselves by claiming they'll one day help everybody if only given political power.
Charities may 'help a few' but they allow governments to get away from restructuring the economy so the majroity suffer - helpg the few makes everyone else worse off.
quote:In the particular quote you noted above, I was agreeing with Fausto and Pilgrim Vagrant (who I had quoted above my comments).
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:Hi cliffdweller. I'm not sure how everything I said has illustrated exactly what you're saying, when you were apparently disagreeing with me. What was it that you were disagreeing with? Or are you not disagreeing with me any more?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of this I think just illustrates my point-- that defining wealth only in comparison to those around you (which is what most of us do) is problematic, and tends to lull us into a false complacency precisely because most of us don't have much contact with the poorest of the poor.
quote:What you actually said (yesterday) that I was disagreeing with (although not as emphatically as I think it's sounded due to the back-and-forth of clarifying) was this, which I understood as saying precisely that-- that wealth IS defined by those around us:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I don't think I ever said wealth is only defined in comparison to those immediately around us. I said that wealth is always relative, and that in the UK we are all wealthier than those in poorer countries - which is what you are also saying. But the original post was about our responsibility as Christians.
quote:That's really what I've been disputing. I'm not sure that you really meant what you said, or what I understood you as saying. For the most part I think we're agreeing. It was only this one statement which (appeared) to be arguing for a definition of wealth based on those "around you" (which I took to mean your neighbors).
Originally posted by Fineline:
I see it more as not living in a way that is richer than those around you - which will vary according to where you live and the people you are surrounded by.
quote:In the abstract your reasoning makes sense. In practice, though, I think the precise figures would depend on just how secure and comprehensive your own nation's social safety net for the elderly is, and not just on a comparison to the average wealth of the entire world's population. The more you can depend on society for basic needs and protection against adverse surprises, the less you need to depend on your own resources. For example, I suspect that in many European countries a secure, non-impoverished retirement can be maintained on a more modest income, with less need to hold a "nest egg" in reserve against the possibility of disastrous unforeseen events, than in the US.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So when are we entitled to count our duties to ourselves, and our dependents more urgent than our duties to the poor? I propose; when we have less than our equal entitlement to the world's wealth; less than $Y/Z income, and/or less than $X/Z net worth.
And when does our duty to the absolutely poor kick in as more urgent than our duties to ourselves and dependents? When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
quote:I followed up to this point. So are you saying that having assets of $1million would confidently expect to return an income of $20,000 - which would be the average of all wealth in the world divided by the population?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And when does our duty to the absolutely poor kick in as more urgent than our duties to ourselves and dependents? When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
quote:I'm curious where your figures are coming from.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
quote:I can't see how it's not a zero-sum game. There is a finite amount of resources that can be converted to goods, and a finite number of people that can provide services.
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:No. In theory wealth is not a zero sum game. Of course, that does depend on how one measures wealth, and the presuppositions one brings to the table.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Is this a fact?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
if the brute fact about the global economy is that their are X amount of $
quote:Most of my figures have come out gloomy and arcane google searches. But actually, the figures themselves are not that important, only the principles by which they are arrived at, which I have duly explained. $X/Z, the total world wealth divided by the total world population, for example, is the arithmetic mean of income, which is obviously going to differ from the median, since the distribution of wealth is so skewed that 1% of the world population owns as much as the remaining 99%.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:I'm curious where your figures are coming from.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
Gallup says the median household income is $10,000 (Dec 2013). (That's household, per capita is a lot lower.) At 2% that would be $500,000, not a million.
quote:Most of my figures have come out gloomy and arcane google searches. But actually, the figures themselves are not that important, only the principles by which they are arrived at, which I have duly explained. $Y/Z, the total world income divided by the total world population, for example, is the arithmetic mean of income, which is obviously going to differ from the median income, since the distribution of wealth is so skewed that 1% of the world population owns as much as the remaining 99%.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:I'm curious where your figures are coming from.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
Gallup says the median household income is $10,000 (Dec 2013). (That's household, per capita is a lot lower.) At 2% that would be $500,000, not a million.
quote:It may be. As we get closer and closer to a truly equitable system of distributing wealth, we may well want to incorporate adjustments. Meanwhile, the inequality we face is so gross, I suspect such adjustments would have only marginal effects. Furthermore, as income distributions in various nations converge, it is likely that health care, utilities, housing quality, educational provision, etc, will also converge, rendering these adjustments less vital.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Riiight.. but how to you account for the value some citizens have in some countries that are not present in others - eg the value of sanitation systems, comprehensive healthcare, roads, etc?
It seems to me that a simple calculation like you've suggested is fairly meaningless.
quote:That is not how it works.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I can't see how it's not a zero-sum game. There is a finite amount of resources that can be converted to goods, and a finite number of people that can provide services.
quote:Yes, but your point is valid-- the income needed to maintain a household will vary from country to country, or even region/state to region/state, so some adjustments must be made.
Originally posted by fausto:
For example, I suspect that in many European countries a secure, non-impoverished retirement can be maintained on a more modest income, with less need to hold a "nest egg" in reserve against the possibility of disastrous unforeseen events, than in the US.
But maybe that's the sort of using only your immediate neighbors as your benchmarks that Cliffdweller is criticizing, I don't know.
quote:Sounds like you want to identify some greedy rich bastards that you can hate with a righteous hatred, who are somehow clearly distinct from the neighbours you're supposed to love...
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I'm trying to draw a line between those who are excessively wealthy, with small moral right to that excess, and those who are merely affluent, and have 'enough'.
quote:Uh huh. Bluster aside, I think this is the pertinent point you are making.
Originally posted by Russ:
A person's moral right to the resources they control depends on how they came by it. If a man makes a million dollars, or ten million dollars, or a hundred million dollars, by honest trade, or by inventing a better mousetrap, why is that any skin off your nose ?
quote:Your "finite amount of $" is a misunderstanding of economics. Trade and invention expand the economy. Creating wealth of itself neither increases nor decreases the numbers of people starving or dying of diseases.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:A person's moral right to excessive wealth, I submit, exists only when no one is harmed by that wealth; when no one starves, or dies of preventable disease, because the finite amount of $ in the world have been justly (not necessarily equally) apportioned out.
Originally posted by Russ:
If a man makes a million dollars, or ten million dollars, or a hundred million dollars, by honest trade, or by inventing a better mousetrap, why is that any skin off your nose ?
quote:Whereas wasting money on nard instead of selling it and giving money to the poor?
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:Trade and invention expand the economy over time. At any given instant, there are only a finite amount of goods and services on offer, and only a finite amount of $ available to ration them with.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Your "finite amount of $" is a misunderstanding of economics. Trade and invention expand the economy. Creating wealth of itself neither increases nor decreases the numbers of people starving or dying of diseases...
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:A person's moral right to excessive wealth, I submit, exists only when no one is harmed by that wealth; when no one starves, or dies of preventable disease, because the finite amount of $ in the world have been justly (not necessarily equally) apportioned out.
Originally posted by Russ:
If a man makes a million dollars, or ten million dollars, or a hundred million dollars, by honest trade, or by inventing a better mousetrap, why is that any skin off your nose ?
quote:Penniless artist here, trying in vain to make a living. Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:I'm not sure it is quite as simple as that, though, Martin. I was sitting in a Cathedral the other day thinking about those who had carved the stone pillars 500 years ago.
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:Obviously a bit of a dilemma here - but isn't it at least better for the cathedral to spend the money on art (thus creating jobs etc.) rather than simply storing it in its coffers?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Penniless artist here, trying in vain to make a living. Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:I think that is a good distinction to make.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think it's important to see a distinction between justice and charity.
It is justice that we share enough that every person has what they need to survive.
It is charity when we share more than that, to the extent that we reduce our own circumstances, because we love others and want them to enjoy life as much as we do - or, indeed, that we can't enjoy life while they are not also doing so.
I think you can discipline yourself into justice - allow others to make rules for it that you then keep.
But we are moved to charity - to Love - by grace.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I followed up to this point. So are you saying that having assets of $1million would confidently expect to return an income of $20,000 - which would be the average of all wealth in the world divided by the population?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And when does our duty to the absolutely poor kick in as more urgent than our duties to ourselves and dependents? When our net worth, invested at 2%, would yield more than $Y/Z. That's a net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
I don't understand where you get these numbers from or why you only consider someone with capital of over $1million to be rich.
quote:All fair questions. As a prelude to my answer, I would insist that I am not trying to draw up Laws to be inscribed as tablets of stone, merely suggest guidelines for you to ignore, criticise, improve upon or live by, as you prefer.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But couldn't one have no savings and an income of $40,000 from a job? I don't understand where this stuff about assets comes from. Who has assets worth $1 million?
quote:Oh no...you are fine because you are penniless. It's the rich people who are evil. Now, a rich person can just give you money for nothing and it not be an evil. However, if the rich person gives you money in exchange for art, then it is evil. Why? Because Jesus said. Can I point to even a proof text in the gospels as evidence that Jesus said so? I cannot, no. However, we aren't actually talking about the Jesus in the gospels anyway.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Penniless artist here, trying in vain to make a living. Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:You aren't willing to give up bottled water for the greater good. The wealthy sure aren't going to take your rather arbitrary formula seriously. Why should they? If they did, civilization would crumble.
originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am trying to suggest an easily understood answer to this vexed question of wealth and Christian duty, and not, I repeat, insist that my suggestions are iron Law that will work for all people in all times and all conditions. Go with the conceptual idealism, and see if you can't make some similar rule for you to live your life by, given your own circumstances.
quote:Bottled water? If this is the worst of my sins, I can live with that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:You aren't willing to give up bottled water for the greater good. The wealthy sure aren't going to take your rather arbitrary formula seriously. Why should they? If they did, civilization would crumble.
originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am trying to suggest an easily understood answer to this vexed question of wealth and Christian duty, and not, I repeat, insist that my suggestions are iron Law that will work for all people in all times and all conditions. Go with the conceptual idealism, and see if you can't make some similar rule for you to live your life by, given your own circumstances.
quote:It might be. If the art lifts the spirit and the cathedral draws people closer to God.
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
quote:Spending on art is IMHO like spending $$ on any other indulgence-- fancy food, expensive cars, big houses, etc. It's neither good nor bad, it's just a choice like any other consumer choice.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In relation to spending on art I think the biggest potential issue is when that expenditure does little to support the artist (or artists in general). Buying art direct from the artist (or, via some agent - eg: CDs at your local music store) provides income for the artist and the support industry. This is good, IMO.
However, what benefit does anyone get when some rich bloke sells a work of art to some other rich bloke? A small handling fee to the auction house does virtually nothing for struggling artists today.
quote:Seriously, you need to read my proposals again, and then respond to them as they are, rather than as you would like them to have been.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Seriously...what evidence do I have?
It's common sense. Try to actually describe a society where every single person is allowed to keep no more than X/Y wealth. Start with the basics. I've got my share of the worlds wealth. Great. I'm hungry. How do I get food? Take the person across the world who is on the verge of starving to death. How does that person get food?
quote:Wow - this is one of the very few times that I agree with Beeswax Altar.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
E]Bottled water? If this is the worst of my sins, I can live with that.
quote:So, is your argument that because I am not perfect, no one else should be good?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, you won't give up bottled water for the greater good and you expect others will give up billions of dollars? Good luck with that.
quote:Sounds attractive to me. I really do like that idea. If I ever found such a community, I might well retreat to it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:How about this? Why don't you find a small group of people willing to live in community and share all things in common as described in Acts? Perhaps, you can inspire the entire world to do likewise.
quote:Yes. The two are not comparable, and I am surprised you think them equivalent. Perhaps you could spell out this equivalence in your mind, so I can answer you more appropriately.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Can you really expect somebody to sacrifice billions of dollars when you aren't willing to sacrifice bottled water?
quote:Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford. Preach it to your billionaire friends, who could do some serious good with their resources, if they chose to, and make your preaching worth your while.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed there isn't an equivalence. Giving up billions of dollars is a much greater sacrifice than giving up bottled water. Some of us care about others and don't want to live on a polluted planet. As one of the saints said, "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make that change."
quote:People who become honourably wealthy generally do so by accumulating their money over time, unless they're lottery winners.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Trade and invention expand the economy over time. At any given instant, there are only a finite amount of goods and services on offer, and only a finite amount of $ available to ration them with.
Originally posted by Russ:
Your "finite amount of $" is a misunderstanding of economics. Trade and invention expand the economy.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Hmmm. I think you are confusing me with your stereotype socialist. Read the thread. Meanwhile, be assured that my motivation is solely that we end absolute poverty, so that no one starves, or dies from preventable disease. I do not find this to be a dishonourable ambition, even if, for some reason, you do.
Originally posted by Russ:
It's good to know that if you and your ilk with your busybodying about other people's incomes do ever succeed in gratifying your desire for universal equality of income,
quote:I suppose one solution is to save it against the possibility that one day you may need it, and leave it in your will to charity if it turns out that you never did need it. Not ideal, but not exactly greedy and selfish either. It's not spending it on indulgent luxuries like yachts and baccarat instead of desperate needs, it's only deferring the gift until it can be safely given.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Yes, but your point is valid-- the income needed to maintain a household will vary from country to country, or even region/state to region/state, so some adjustments must be made.
Originally posted by fausto:
For example, I suspect that in many European countries a secure, non-impoverished retirement can be maintained on a more modest income, with less need to hold a "nest egg" in reserve against the possibility of disastrous unforeseen events, than in the US.
But maybe that's the sort of using only your immediate neighbors as your benchmarks that Cliffdweller is criticizing, I don't know.
I like the point that Lamb is making-- that living in a society that provides some basic safety net for retirement makes it much easier to give generously. Of course, to some degree one could say that's where faith comes in (there was no safety net to protect Zaccheus or the Rich Young Ruler when Jesus called them to give away it all). But apart from a distinct calling from God, one could, as Lamb said, reasonably be concerned that they not become a burden on their children. But, like Lamb, I find it very hard to anticipate how much will be needed, because there are so many unknowns. A mostly able-bodied retirement in a small apartment is much easier to save for then years spent in nursing home or assisted living (as many of us will end up). But if we all save up for that possibility (fyi: I've looked into nursing home insurance and it doesn't seem to be much of a financial bargain unless you're fairly certain that's where you'll end up) that's a lot of wasted resources for those of us who don't-- resources that could have been spent dealing with extreme poverty. And of course, if more places had those kinds of social nets, there would be less homelessnes/ extreme poverty.
quote:It's not clear to me whether Jesus was speaking literally in those instances, or using hyperbole to emphasize his underlying point. He was a master of many things, including irony and rhetoric.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(there was no safety net to protect Zaccheus or the Rich Young Ruler when Jesus called them to give away it all).
quote:Oh...my billionaire friends wouldn't think of telling you or anybody else how to spend their money either.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford. Preach it to your billionaire friends, who could do some serious good with their resources, if they chose to, and make your preaching worth your while.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed there isn't an equivalence. Giving up billions of dollars is a much greater sacrifice than giving up bottled water. Some of us care about others and don't want to live on a polluted planet. As one of the saints said, "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make that change."
Cheers, PV.
quote:I might believe this. If you'd started a thread about the sufferings of the poor and the merits of the various ways in which these might best be relieved.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
be assured that my motivation is solely that we end absolute poverty, so that no one starves, or dies from preventable disease.
quote:You seem to have missed the point I am making. Clearly, despite my best efforts, I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth, and when the needs of the poor outweigh that. This should not be a difficult concept to get one's head around, if one tries hard enough.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I might believe this. If you'd started a thread about the sufferings of the poor and the merits of the various ways in which these might best be relieved.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
be assured that my motivation is solely that we end absolute poverty, so that no one starves, or dies from preventable disease.
But your focus seems to be on the rich and how undeserving they are of what they have, and what income level we take as a threshold above which we can call them greedy unChristian bastards...
quote:Obviously not, since it is in their interest that no one interferes in how wealth is spent, given they have so much more of it than everyone else.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Oh...my billionaire friends wouldn't think of telling you or anybody else how to spend their money either.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford. Preach it to your billionaire friends, who could do some serious good with their resources, if they chose to, and make your preaching worth your while.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed there isn't an equivalence. Giving up billions of dollars is a much greater sacrifice than giving up bottled water. Some of us care about others and don't want to live on a polluted planet. As one of the saints said, "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make that change."
Cheers, PV.
quote:There's nothing immoral about earning. I think Martin Luther had it right when he said that God created avarice to impel men to earning, ambition to office and lust to marriage. Our impulses are, by themselves neither bad nor good - it is what purpose we turn those impulses to that matters.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth
quote:I'm sure you don't intend it this way, but that sounds an awful lot like "There's no point in me doing anything because what I can do is piddling but they could do so much more so it's their problem to solve."
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford. Preach it to your billionaire friends, who could do some serious good with their resources, if they chose to, and make your preaching worth your while.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed there isn't an equivalence. Giving up billions of dollars is a much greater sacrifice than giving up bottled water. Some of us care about others and don't want to live on a polluted planet. As one of the saints said, "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make that change."
Cheers, PV.
quote:Until the parousia comes, wealth will always be unequally and inequitably distributed. But isn't it better that it be held in compassionate moral hands rather than greedy, avaricious hands?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth, and when the needs of the poor outweigh that.
quote:Ah yes, the classic Socialist attitude that the perfect amount of wealth and luxury that any individual should have in a fair and equal world just so happens to be exactly the same amount that the Socialist in question has at the time. It's been a while.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford.
quote:This. Absolutely spot on, and absolutely challenging. There's really nothing more to be said, but rather time to go to prayer, that might heart might be changed.
Originally posted by Snags:
I'm sure you don't intend it this way, but that sounds an awful lot like "There's no point in me doing anything because what I can do is piddling but they could do so much more so it's their problem to solve."
Whilst on an engineering level that might be true, in terms of actually effecting social change I'm not sure it is. Rather the underlying point in BA's post (and it's rare I agree with him on much) is that each of us is responsible for making the differences that we can make, not passing the buck because of some self-justifying sense of scale. Further, if enough 'little people' actually did start to make such changes then over time it could well influence culture, values and society at large. At which point, the whole game changes.
"Ah, but it will never happen, you dewy-eyed idealist!" I hear you cry. Well, no, it won't, not whilst we all just brush it off as naive, unrealistic, hippy-dippy pipe-dreams.
Rest assured that I preach to myself as much as anyone else with this. It's not pointed. Or at least, it's no less pointy for me than you, PV, or anyone else.
quote:A tacky response that does you no credit. I am sure you could do better if you tried. You might, for example, try addressing the central issue, rather than deliberately mistaking my political alignment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ah yes, the classic Socialist attitude that the perfect amount of wealth and luxury that any individual should have in a fair and equal world just so happens to be exactly the same amount that the Socialist in question has at the time. It's been a while.
quote:Yes, it is a high bar. My intention is not to quell ambition and enterprise, just decide at what point the starving have a prior call on an individual's bank balance. It may be there is no such point. It may be that the starving always have a prior call. But such a result would, I fear, render good people all starving, themselves.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Assets of a $1million or an income of $20000 still seems like a pretty high bar to me.
quote:I agree with all this. But I also think that, while people of good-will are all doing their bit, there are some selfish rich slackers that need to be gently encouraged to start contributing, at best, or harshly called to account, at worst. The fact is, we can end global absolute poverty, if we want to. We, the world, for the first time in history, have the resource. It's making that resource available to the cause, that is the issue.
Originally posted by Snags:
... what I can do is piddling but they could do so much more so it's their problem to solve."
Whilst on an engineering level that might be true, in terms of actually effecting social change I'm not sure it is. Rather the underlying point in BA's post (and it's rare I agree with him on much) is that each of us is responsible for making the differences that we can make, not passing the buck because of some self-justifying sense of scale. Further, if enough 'little people' actually did start to make such changes then over time it could well influence culture, values and society at large. At which point, the whole game changes.
"Ah, but it will never happen, you dewy-eyed idealist!" I hear you cry. Well, no, it won't, not whilst we all just brush it off as naive, unrealistic, hippy-dippy pipe-dreams.
Rest assured that I preach to myself as much as anyone else with this. It's not pointed. Or at least, it's no less pointy for me than you, PV, or anyone else.
quote:Doesn't the OT rule of tithing say never? There's never a point at which it is moral to say "what's mine is mine and no one else gets a cent if it"?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth....
quote:Yep...I feel guilty about all those people who have less than me. I envy those who have more than me. How about if all those who have more than me give to those who have less than me? Then, everybody will have the same amount and I will feel neither guilt nor envy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Ah yes, the classic Socialist attitude that the perfect amount of wealth and luxury that any individual should have in a fair and equal world just so happens to be exactly the same amount that the Socialist in question has at the time. It's been a while.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Then don't preach that to me, about petty luxuries I would defend anyone's right to afford.
quote:Where’s the comparison? A penitent whore literally gives her pension, earned on her back and her knees; her redeemed life in a timeless, sublime gesture acknowledging Christ, fulfilling His title and presaging His death, a witness to trillions. She’d have gone on to live as a socialist in the church (which is redundant phraseology I realise) of course. The rich patronizing art with their trickledown (and unfortunately great art flourishes under patronage, except the greatest: Van Gogh) is having all things in common is it?
Leorning Cniht
Originally posted by Martin60:
No but the rich wasting their money on art and cathedrals isn't Christian.
Whereas wasting money on nard instead of selling it and giving money to the poor?
quote:A bit like the biggest wart on the taxpayer’s arse welfare system on Earth, the US military-industrial complex.
Salicional
Martin, you say 'wasting money on art and cathedrals' as though the money is simply tossed into a deep pit somewhere. It isn't...it's used to employ people who are then able to feed their families. Think of all the labor that went into building those Gothic cathedrals: some stonemasons literally worked on them their whole lives. Add in the architects, woodcarvers, glaziers, sculptors, etc...not to mention the many people whose job it is just to haul building materials from one place to another. I'd say funding a cathedral is actually quite a generous gesture towards one's community
quote:You’re welcome. That’s capitalism. The drowning waves of irony wash over me as they did last week when I sat in the shade of the El Vegetariano de la Alcazabilla prior to visiting the Malaga Picasso Museum, when some poor sod … Christ in disguise … came round with his ‘work’; a wad of printer’s rejects. The problem is my wife does the cash. The woman that thou gavest me won’t even let me feed the sparrows. Next time I must have a pocketful of Euros just for the many, many such as he. Nerja Ayuntamiento actually advertise the seven deaf begging brothers. As for the West African bling peddlers and the girl whose knees work backwards outside the Church of the Saviour …
Adeodatus
Penniless artist here, trying in vain to make a living. Thanks a bunch.
quote:I understand the economics of not being able to afford cheap. I’m STILL a Keynesian. As long as the needy in the community are the biggest beneficiaries of church building beautification itself.
Baptist Trainfan
Obviously a bit of a dilemma here - but isn't it at least better for the cathedral to spend the money on art (thus creating jobs etc.) rather than simply storing it in its coffers?
An interesting story which I heard the other day from a friend. Back in the 70s he visited a well-known Evangelical church in the US and found it to be extremely well-appointed. In his mind he started to roundly criticise its wasteful spending - until he discovered that its budget for serving the needy in the community in fact far exceeded the amounts spent on beautifying the church building. In other words, appearances had been deceptive.
quote:You’re funny.
Beeswax Altar
Oh no...you are fine because you are penniless. It's the rich people who are evil. Now, a rich person can just give you money for nothing and it not be an evil. However, if the rich person gives you money in exchange for art, then it is evil. Why? Because Jesus said. Can I point to even a proof text in the gospels as evidence that Jesus said so? I cannot, no. However, we aren't actually talking about the Jesus in the gospels anyway.
quote:It was worth it as a lesson from history. They are always the most expensive. I’m all for building beautiful buildings to employ and house and mentor the poor, comfort the afflicted.
mr cheesy
I'm not sure it is quite as simple as that, though, Martin. I was sitting in a Cathedral the other day thinking about those who had carved the stone pillars 500 years ago.
It must have been a monumental cost and effort over generations. Can that ever have been worth it?
On the other hand, the building certainly has gravitas, and has affected a lot of people over a long period.
So where do you draw the line? What spending is actually acceptable?
quote:Ah, blessed are the middle class.
no prophet's flag is set so...
It might be. If the art lifts the spirit and the cathedral draws people closer to God.
quote:Not really.
The rich buying private jet aircraft and successfully lobbying government for corporate welfare so they can do a zero hours contract on their foodbank-needing employers and place their money in off-shore banks shielded from taxes via crony capitalism (we may look from politician to corporate exec and back again, unable tell the difference) is probably less Christian as a comparison.
quote:As long as there’re fat cats, the mice you will always have with you.
We used to make corporations compete in a free market, but we stopped that in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It's time to stop the cats from exploiting the mice isn't it?
quote:We always have a moral right to private property, to honestly-earned wealth.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:There's nothing immoral about earning...
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth
The challenge then is how much justice obliges you to share and how much Love impels you to share.
quote:The problem seems to be that most people cannot be relied up nor trusted to use their wealth responsibly. So we must organize systematic removal of some of their wealth and redistribute it. It's called taxation, but the taxation is not generally used that way any more. It is used instead to give the rich more. Because they can defer, hide and otherwise not pay their fair share. All of our countries do this for the rich. Trust me, I know, because I am rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
We always have a moral right to private property, to honestly-earned wealth.
But alongside that right there's a moral imperative to use that wealth well - wisely and compassionately. The responsibility comes with the right.
Love impels us to respond to the needs of those who are people to us, others with whom we have some sort of I-thou relationship. If you know that someone you recognise as a member of your community is starving, would you not forgo some of your discretionary spending, dip into your reserves, to help ?
Framing the question in terms of rights and equality is not the way to look at it. It's about trying to look after the people God puts our way.
quote:Did know what a 'moral right' was so I looked it up. The term pertains to copyright law.
Originally posted by Russ:
We always have a moral right to private property, to honestly-earned wealth.
quote:So, by this code, it is not the amount, but how that amount relates to what you have. We all have our own benchmark and it has bugger-all to do with what anyone else does.
Originally posted by Snags:
each of us is responsible for making the differences that we can make, not passing the buck because of some self-justifying sense of scale. Further, if enough 'little people' actually did start to make such changes then over time it could well influence culture, values and society at large. At which point, the whole game changes.
"Ah, but it will never happen, you dewy-eyed idealist!" I hear you cry. Well, no, it won't, not whilst we all just brush it off as naive, unrealistic, hippy-dippy pipe-dreams.
quote:You might be interested to know that new analysis out today casts doubt on the claims of wider effects of deworming on society. Apparently this has fed into the Cochrane Review process - but I have not yet read what that says.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Anyway, making that difference does not necessarily mean chucking money at spendthrift ne'er-do-wells. Better by far to fund enabling projects. On one course I followed, on this topic, the startling claim was made that simply deworming children regularly results in better school performance, better work prospects, and some 20% increase in their pay 10 years into adulthood. Providing malaria nets, nutritious school lunches, free spectacles, etc, might all be expected to have similar, if less dramatic, outcomes.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Of course there are. But if we look to our own houses then any criticism of others will carry a bit more weight ...
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:I agree with all this. But I also think that, while people of good-will are all doing their bit, there are some selfish rich slackers that need to be gently encouraged to start contributing, at best, or harshly called to account, at worst. The fact is, we can end global absolute poverty, if we want to. We, the world, for the first time in history, have the resource. It's making that resource available to the cause, that is the issue.
Originally posted by Snags:
... what I can do is piddling but they could do so much more so it's their problem to solve."
Whilst on an engineering level that might be true, in terms of actually effecting social change I'm not sure it is. Rather the underlying point in BA's post (and it's rare I agree with him on much) is that each of us is responsible for making the differences that we can make, not passing the buck because of some self-justifying sense of scale. Further, if enough 'little people' actually did start to make such changes then over time it could well influence culture, values and society at large. At which point, the whole game changes.
"Ah, but it will never happen, you dewy-eyed idealist!" I hear you cry. Well, no, it won't, not whilst we all just brush it off as naive, unrealistic, hippy-dippy pipe-dreams.
Rest assured that I preach to myself as much as anyone else with this. It's not pointed. Or at least, it's no less pointy for me than you, PV, or anyone else.
Cheers, PV.
quote:Thanks, Belle, for helping out. I'm quite happy with all the points you made.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Interesting attempt to identify how much is too much? Not well enough refined yet.
Maybe those of us criticizing your formula need to get more creative by addressing the issues constructively, like:
1. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO MUCH of the world's assets or has too high an income and has a moral duty to distribute some of it?
1A. If yes, why; if no, why not given that some are starving for no moral fault of their own?
2. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO LITTLE of the world's assets or has too low an income and has a moral duty to keep everything for their own use?
3. Can we identify all the elements (or all the major elements) that go into that (too high or too low) level?
quote:My guilt and envy have nothing to do with the issue. They are subjective states that won't buy a single anti-malaria shot, or bottle of clean water. The objective issue is saving vulnerable lives. I am shocked you want to score debating points about this.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep...I feel guilty about all those people who have less than me. I envy those who have more than me. How about if all those who have more than me give to those who have less than me? Then, everybody will have the same amount and I will feel neither guilt nor envy.
quote:I don't think there is a theoretical point that is the same universally for all people throughout the world. Too much depends on individual circumstances and needs, and on the general conditions of the societies, in which both the givers and recipients find themselves. I think trying to define a level at which holding "too much" wealth is evil is both an impossible task and inappropriately judgmental.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
1. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO MUCH of the world's assets or has too high an income and has a moral duty to distribute some of it?
1A. If yes, why; if no, why not given that some are starving for no moral fault of their own?
2. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO LITTLE of the world's assets or has too low an income and has a moral duty to keep everything for their own use?
3. Can we identify all the elements (or all the major elements) that go into that (too high or too low) level?
quote:My only problem is when people turn should give into must give. Or to put it another way, when they mistake a moral code for a legal one.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Each should give according to ability to do so.
quote:Aye, but the alternative is leaving people to starve in the gutters or die of exposure in the fields. So some compulsory taxation is going to be required. And then the question is, again, how much.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:My only problem is when people turn should give into must give. Or to put it another way, when they mistake a moral code for a legal one.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Each should give according to ability to do so.
quote:"How much we need" is quite the moveable feast, though! I have no problem with a welfare system that ensures adequate nutrition and shelter for all, but somehow I suspect that wouldn't be enough for some...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aye, but the alternative is leaving people to starve in the gutters or die of exposure in the fields. So some compulsory taxation is going to be required. And then the question is, again, how much.
To which my answer is "enough to meet the identified needs". It's not really a question of how much should people be left to live on, which you mischievously suggest is always the amount a given left winger happens to have; it's how much we need, and who is best placed to pay it.
quote:A common experience. Whether dealing with charities or homeless beggars or stray animals, the recipient naturally returns again to where they recently got what they needed. Don't we all! That's why the neighbor who borrowed a tool from you before borrows again, the initial loan established you as a source, even if you thought of it as an exception.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...particularly after extending myself and giving considerable amounts of money and volunteer time, that there is no thanks, that my amounts given are mere pittance, only to be asked yet again, as if my donation has made me out to be a stooge or a mark they know they can get more from.
quote:We give 'em three bowls of fortified gruel a day and the use of a clean sleeping tube for 8 full hours. And still they don't seem happy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How much we need" is quite the moveable feast, though! I have no problem with a welfare system that ensures adequate nutrition and shelter for all, but somehow I suspect that wouldn't be enough for some...
quote:I think we are all naturally selfish. Indeed, I think our natural tendency to selfishness, biological, inherent, and indivisible from our natures, is precisely what is meant by 'original sin'. The trick is to set up social structures that counter our selfish tendencies. We need societies, incentives, religions, organisations, and discussions that value selflessness, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all humanity. And then humanity has some chance of indefinite survival.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:There's nothing immoral about earning. ... in practice is hard because we - well, certainly *I* - am naturally selfish and therefore would resist grace.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I am interested in when we have a moral right to our wealth
quote:That's a myth put about by men with small penises and small bank balances. Ask any hippy-chick.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
With money as with penis size, it isn't what you've got that counts, but what you do with it.
quote:Well indeed; but if it wasn't up for debate then there wouldn't be, well, debate.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"How much we need" is quite the moveable feast, though! I have no problem with a welfare system that ensures adequate nutrition and shelter for all, but somehow I suspect that wouldn't be enough for some...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aye, but the alternative is leaving people to starve in the gutters or die of exposure in the fields. So some compulsory taxation is going to be required. And then the question is, again, how much.
To which my answer is "enough to meet the identified needs". It's not really a question of how much should people be left to live on, which you mischievously suggest is always the amount a given left winger happens to have; it's how much we need, and who is best placed to pay it.
quote:Some assume anyone evicted "deserves it" because they "obviously" wasted their money on gambling or drugs. Is there a way to get rid of that too common assumption?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given the existence of foodbanks and people choosing between putting the heating on and eating, and
being evicted because they can't afford rent I don't think we're currently meeting even your basic requirements, are we?
quote:I don't know if we ever lost this sort of thinking. Certainly it is a prominent theme in conservative American politics.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The Victorian (English) used to draw a distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving poor were the industrious, virtuous victims of fate. The undeserving poor drank.
I think Britain is sliding back into this thinking...
quote:The problem with the free market is that people will charge whatever they can get away with, and prices tend to rise to meet incomes. There seems to be an inherent disconnect between the cost to produce, the value to the consumer, and the avarice of the shareholder. I favour freedom, mostly, but freedom informed by common sense. The 'free' market is no bad thing, in that 'free' trade has enriched western societies and raised first world standards of living. But I think it only sensible to ensure that everyone gets to participate, no one gets left behind, and none are so poor that they are shut out of the capacity to afford basic essentials.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:Some assume anyone evicted "deserves it" because they "obviously" wasted their money on gambling or drugs. Is there a way to get rid of that too common assumption?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given the existence of foodbanks and people choosing between putting the heating on and eating, and
being evicted because they can't afford rent I don't think we're currently meeting even your basic requirements, are we?
In USA, you forgot a biggie -- choosing between prescribed medicines and food. Doc told me to try a lotion that contains a NSAID. Didn't tell me it costs $200! But last time I had a bad cough and asked for tylenol #3 (about $6), explaining 1/3rd of a pill at night quiets the cough and allows sleep, he insisted on prescribing a "better" cough syrup - which cost $130!
I'll make my own NSAID cream for a few pennies instead of giving up a month of food for his outrageously expensive one. (See the web for instructions.)
(Pharmacist said go look for a coupon; I found the lotion on the web for 1/3rd the price the local cut rate pharmacy charges, pre-coupon! Most people don't have the leisure to spend hours looking for a lower price. Something's really wrong with medical pricing in USA.)
quote:It is worth saying that in the context of medical bills, we have nothing at all like a free market. We have about the most dysfunctional market that it's possible to have.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The problem with the free market is that people will charge whatever they can get away with, and prices tend to rise to meet incomes.
quote:That's because choosing health care is not the same as choosing to buy a pair of shoes. Unlike shoe-shoppers, patients are "involuntary consumers". You can't shop around as easily or effectively as one can compare the shoe prices at store A and store B. You can't walk away if the price is too high. When you walk into an ER with symptoms of a heart attack, even if they knew exactly what services you will require, no one can even tell you what your bill will be or what part insurance will cover. And even if you could compare, you're not really able at that point to leave and go to the hospital 20 miles down the road. All of the factors which make the free market work when you're buying shoes or cars or cell phones are simply not present when buying health care.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:It is worth saying that in the context of medical bills, we have nothing at all like a free market. We have about the most dysfunctional market that it's possible to have.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
The problem with the free market is that people will charge whatever they can get away with, and prices tend to rise to meet incomes.
quote:I've taken several (free 6 week) courses on line from Coursera on sustainability. All agree there is plenty of food, we currently grow enough to feed over 10 billion, but 1/4 to 1/3rd of food grown is wasted (some say 40% in USA). Shelter shouldn't be a major issue.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A thought experiment. Let us assume that it is possible to calculate a bottom line for everybody on earth: enough food, shelter, health care to keep you alive. The cost of this is X. If the number of people on earth is Y, then we need x times y dollars to achieve this happy minimal state.
Is there enough value, enough XY, to achieve this?
quote:Again, this is precisely what Jeffrey Sachs did in his work-- both a good, specific definition of "extreme poverty" (sort of the reverse of what you're asking for here) as well as a comprehensive plan to eliminate it w/in 20 years.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A thought experiment. Let us assume that it is possible to calculate a bottom line for everybody on earth: enough food, shelter, health care to keep you alive. The cost of this is X. If the number of people on earth is Y, then we need x times y dollars to achieve this happy minimal state.
Is there enough value, enough XY, to achieve this? If there isn't, then we need to either lower Y, the number of people (or at least slow down the increase), or decrease that minimum maintenance cost X.
Let's assume that there is enough XY to do this. How then to get from our current dysfunctionality to there? It is probably not possible to impose it by fiat.
quote:Quite. (and insurance just makes it worse, because then it's not even you that's buying the healthcare, it's the insurance company ...)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of the factors which make the free market work when you're buying shoes or cars or cell phones are simply not present when buying health care.
quote:In this thought experiment, does everyone get given their shelter and their daily food allowance (parking the question of health care for the time being) for free, no matter what they do ? Or do you require them to fail some form of means test before they qualify ?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A thought experiment. Let us assume that it is possible to calculate a bottom line for everybody on earth: enough food, shelter, health care to keep you alive. The cost of this is X. If the number of people on earth is Y, then we need x times y dollars to achieve this happy minimal state.
quote:You seem to know a lot about how subsistence farmers think. I happen to speak with them a lot, and I don't think things are as simple as you put it.
Russ: For most of human history, most people have been subsistence farmers. If I'm a desperately poor subsistence farmer in some Third World country, will you give me for nothing a shelter and a diet that my father and my grandfather worked hard all their lives to almost-achieve ? While I sit around and do nothing ? Will that give me a meaningful and satisfying life ?
quote:We don't need to. There are experts in the field-- like Sachs-- who have done that work. I'm not an economist-- but Sachs is.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:In this thought experiment, does everyone get given their shelter and their daily food allowance (parking the question of health care for the time being) for free, no matter what they do ? Or do you require them to fail some form of means test before they qualify ?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A thought experiment. Let us assume that it is possible to calculate a bottom line for everybody on earth: enough food, shelter, health care to keep you alive. The cost of this is X. If the number of people on earth is Y, then we need x times y dollars to achieve this happy minimal state.
For most of human history, most people have been subsistence farmers. If I'm a desperately poor subsistence farmer in some Third World country, will you give me for nothing a shelter and a diet that my father and my grandfather worked hard all their lives to almost-achieve ? While I sit around and do nothing ? Will that give me a meaningful and satisfying life ?
If you go for the means test, why should I not gamble with my neighbour - winner gets all the land and property of both of us, loser gets a meal ticket for life from the nice western lady ?
One rung up from bare-subsistence is the poor farmers who can grow a little extra to trade for luxuries like metal tools. What will it do to them if you flood the market with free food ?
Don't think you've thought this through...
Best wishes,
Russ
quote:I was privileged to attend a presentation about a similar initiative in Bristol, UK, this week. I went along not because I have any professional interest, but because the social entrepreneur involved, Nigel, works out of the same business incubation office space that I do, and I wanted to support him just by being there.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Don't remember if I posted this one yet, article about Utah's Housing First program. First you get chronic homeless into apartments. Then they go find themselves jobs, get off the booze, etc.,not because they are threatened with expulsion if they don't (no such threats) but because most people, until you have some stability you can't pursue those goals.
quote:These, and others, are all valid questions. But, Russ, the way you have put it suggests that you think that the hungry and malnourished and economically marginal need to be hungry, and malnourished, and economically marginal for their own good. Please reassure me that this is not what you meant.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:...
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A thought experiment. Let us assume that it is possible to calculate a bottom line for everybody on earth: enough food, shelter, health care to keep you alive. The cost of this is X. If the number of people on earth is Y, then we need x times y dollars to achieve this happy minimal state.
For most of human history, most people have been subsistence farmers. If I'm a desperately poor subsistence farmer in some Third World country, will you give me for nothing a shelter and a diet that my father and my grandfather worked hard all their lives to almost-achieve ? While I sit around and do nothing ? Will that give me a meaningful and satisfying life ?
...
quote:Despite these well-meaning words, the reality is somewhat different: whichever political reality we accept, there are always the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. We always decide that some are worth helping and some are not.
Originally posted by Martin60:
PV. This ISN'T a criticism. I love that approach. It's a great, real start. But there's NO SUCH THING as the undeserving poor. Double quotes next time please!
quote:It's actually not unique to Utah, although there's a facebook meme that makes it sound like it is. It's actually a federal program based on the latest research, which has found that getting housing first before working on getting sober, dealing with mental or physical illness, or whatever the underlying causal factors are (as opposed to the reverse, which was the prevailing pattern) is far more effective. The grants to be a part of this program are available to any community in the US, but they haven't been well-used everywhere. The city where I live is one of the very few in our part of Southern Cal that has really invested in this program in the same way that Utah has. I work with the homeless thru several local non-profits so have had a chance to see it up close. It's not without it's problems-- both practical (finding sufficient housing in our densely populated area has been a huge challenge) and even ethical conundrums (it will take us years, if ever, before we are housing all our homeless-- so lots of ethical conundrums about how to triage who gets housed first). But our homeless census was down for the first time last year, our (old school) emergency shelter had space available. So yes, it is making a difference.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Don't remember if I posted this one yet, article about Utah's Housing First program. First you get chronic homeless into apartments. Then they go find themselves jobs, get off the booze, etc.,not because they are threatened with expulsion if they don't (no such threats) but because most people, until you have some stability you can't pursue those goals.
quote:Yes, this is part of what works about the program. "Seamless integration" still hasn't happened, but we're getting there, and that's a big part of the solution. We have a single entry point with social workers that help administer the program and the range of services that are available, that's been an important aspect as well. There's a quick phone # for rapid response much like 911 that allows churches, non-profits, all those people who are apt to be the first contact to quickly access those services to help people find aid.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
But the theme of the presentation was the seamless integration of multi-agency support, co-ordinated around the needs of the individual concerned. So, there were a whole bunch of people there, from health agencies, the police, from education, from the charitable sector, and so on. It seems such a simple, obvious idea, to respond with a range of specialists to make for a holistic approach to rehabilitating the undeserving poor. But, in the UK at least, agencies often work in isolation from each other, and the result is a patchy response with incoherent strategies and objectives, and, naturally, sub-optimal outcomes.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I am sure mr cheesy will be pleased to hear that. But from my perspective, I know how difficult it is to get the tone of moral discourse correctly acceptable, both to the religiously credulous on the one hand, and the politically cynical on the other. I think we all need to practice that, myself included, and consider every contribution to this thread an experiment in that practice. And it is my thread; I started it, and reserve the right to judge the acceptability of each such experiment.
Originally posted by Martin60:
In deed you did PilgrimVagrant, my apologies and I retract my high-minded, moral-sounding, self-righteous bilge
quote:Seems to me that there's a valid point here. It's something like a "hierarchy of needs" argument:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer
1. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO MUCH of the world's assets or has too high an income and has a moral duty to distribute some of it?
1A. If yes, why; if no, why not given that some are starving for no moral fault of their own?
2. Is there theoretically a point at which someone holds TOO LITTLE of the world's assets or has too low an income and has a moral duty to keep everything for their own use?
3. Can we identify all the elements (or all the major elements) that go into that (too high or too low) level?
quote:Neither are we called to ignore it. Judgmental is in the way we call attention to an issue, not in the calling of attention itself.
Originally posted by Russ:
And we're called not to be judgmental about others who don't strike quite the same balance that we do.
quote:Hi PV.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
the way you have put it suggests that you think that the hungry and malnourished and economically marginal need to be hungry, and malnourished, and economically marginal for their own good. Please reassure me that this is not what you meant.
quote:There, you see, we are not so politically distant, at all. I agree with all that. The thing is, I think we humans are such an acquisitive lot, that immediately our physiological needs are sorted, we will start working on our other needs and desires; maybe a bicycle, maybe sending our children to school, maybe buying some goats, maybe starting a trading business, maybe financing a private jet. Whatever, I do not think there is much risk that anyone will just sit around and do nothing, simply because they are no longer hungry.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Hi PV.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
the way you have put it suggests that you think that the hungry and malnourished and economically marginal need to be hungry, and malnourished, and economically marginal for their own good. Please reassure me that this is not what you meant.
Not saying that anyone should be malnourished. Saying rather that the poorest need to be nourished in a way that does not make meaningless their own efforts and their own culture. And the efforts of the not-quite-so-poor to keep themselves above that starvation level.
Which can be an unintended consequence of approaches that focus on "feeding the hungry" rather than "assisting the hungry in their own fight for survival".
quote:LOL, you didn't get the joke Martin was making about HISTORY?
no prophet's flag is set so...: We emerged from Africa some 750,000 to 1.5 million years ago. We started farming about 10,000 years ago. You might be able to argue 15,000. Most of human history is us living in small tribal groups, hunting and gathering.
quote:I read an article some years ago, anthropologists visiting one of the last "stone age" tribes; standard work week was about 25 hours a week for all necessary functions - food finding, meal preparing, clothes making, weapon making, housing, etc. They were horrified when told we work 40 hours a week. (Actually, many of us work a lot more than 40, after the job we do the cooking washing housework yard work, plus the time commuting). Much time as spent socializing, playing with the children -- things we moderns long to do but lack time for.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The other side of Eden is low population density and relatively easy food acquisition. Which is still the lifestyle in some remote places. There is an ease of life when connected to the natural world. Need food? Today you can just fish for it or shoot it with modern weapons. When I have been in the north in unspoiled areas the amount of time needed to catch today's fish is usually less than an hour. I think in prefarming times wealth of the indvidual was irrelevant because the garden was so rich.
quote:The Garden of Eden story can easily be read as an allegory for the transition of human society from prehistoric hunting and gathering to historic agricultural civilization, rather than for the innate and inescapable depravity of human nature. When Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden, Adam was explicitly sentenced to produce his own food through difficult toil, but not to eternal perdition.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re subsistence farming. Nope we haven't been farmers for most of human history, we've been gatherer-hunters. The other side of Eden is low population density and relatively easy food acquisition.
...
I think in prefarming times wealth of the indvidual was irrelevant because the garden was so rich.
quote:Average life expectancy of 30 does not mean everyone died by about 30. There have always been old people. Every culture has stories of old people.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
an age in which people were mainly dead by 30, and venerable rare exceptions at 40,
Cheers, PV.
quote:Average life expectancy is really just that. Average. And, specifically, it refers to Average Life Expectancy at birth. How it works.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:Average life expectancy of 30 does not mean everyone died by about 30. There have always been old people. Every culture has stories of old people.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
an age in which people were mainly dead by 30, and venerable rare exceptions at 40,
Cheers, PV.
quote:Yup, that's it. Hunter-gatherers leave no written records and no remains of built structures - no history. It's when people have settled to farming that they need writing to record who owns what and walls to defend their territory.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:... the transition of human society from prehistoric hunting and gathering to historic agricultural civilization....
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nope we haven't been farmers for most of human history, we've been gatherer-hunters..
quote:There's enough nearsightedness in human populations that I have difficulty believing it's all evolved in the last 5000 years.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People were healthy, because if you weren't you died. No lingering for years being ill. It is a cinch that a significant fraction of persons reading this right now would not have survived to adulthood 5000 years ago. I know I would not. (Nearsightedness would have meant I was cougar bait.)
quote:There is a skeleton of a prehistoric man who had such severe arthritis that other people must have supplied his food for a long time before he died.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most human societies care for the elderly; the difference between being elderly and lingering for years being ill escapes me.
quote:Not singling out your reply, but we actually do know quite a bit about hunter gatherers in Canada. because up to 100-150 years ago the first peoples lived that way. I have met quite a score. They fish and hunt, now with modern weapons, which makes things even easier. But the ease of life is rather apparent. I cast my fishing rod 17 times on a canoe trip and caught fish 12 times on a canoe trip a few years back. The data I've seen indicates that before the Europeans showed up, the people lived to their mid-60s and were in good health as others have indicated. The ease of life is astonishing in a difficult environment like this: we get less than 100 days a year without a below freezing temperature.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I think it easy to romanticise a past of which we know very little. Seems to me that nostalgia for an age in which people were mainly dead by 30, and venerable rare exceptions at 40, is perhaps a trifle misplaced. These guys didn't even have tabasco sauce, umbrellas, whitening toothpaste or the BBC Radio 4 Today program. And nor would we if we shrank our population back down to prehistoric levels. Modern economies need a critical mass of affluent population to make innovation profitably worthwhile. Otherwise, we stagnate, and all our lives are impoverished.
Cheers, PV.
quote:This is a common justification for wealth disparity, but it is largely rubbish. You do need a significant population as you need a significant labour force dedicated to those things and then a significant force feeding them.
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I think it easy to romanticise a past of which we know very little. Seems to me that nostalgia for an age in which people were mainly dead by 30, and venerable rare exceptions at 40, is perhaps a trifle misplaced. These guys didn't even have tabasco sauce, umbrellas, whitening toothpaste or the BBC Radio 4 Today program. And nor would we if we shrank our population back down to prehistoric levels. Modern economies need a critical mass of affluent population to make innovation profitably worthwhile. Otherwise, we stagnate, and all our lives are impoverished.
Cheers, PV.
quote:It should be reasonably clear from my posts on this thread that I do not favour large wealth disparities. Rather, I advocate universal affluence, so that everyone can afford to partake in innovations. Any idea that most people need to be poor so that a few can be rich seems to me to be fundamentally misplaced. The richer everyone else is, the larger the market, and the easier our own wealth becomes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is a common justification for wealth disparity, but it is largely rubbish. You do need a significant population as you need a significant labour force dedicated to those things and then a significant force feeding them...
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Modern economies need a critical mass of affluent population to make innovation profitably worthwhile. Otherwise, we stagnate, and all our lives are impoverished.
Cheers, PV.
quote:(honest question): How does this differ from the trickle-down Reagonomics that Bush I once (before it became politically expedient to go with it) called "voodoo economics"? It seems pretty clear that trickle-down is precisely what caused I current inequality and greatly increased poverty in the US-- because it really doesn't trickle down. Is there another way to get at this widespread affluence you advocate w/o depending on the wealthy to spread it around voluntarily?
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
It should be reasonably clear from my posts on this thread that I do not favour large wealth disparities. Rather, I advocate universal affluence, so that everyone can afford to partake in innovations. Any idea that most people need to be poor so that a few can be rich seems to me to be fundamentally misplaced. The richer everyone else is, the larger the market, and the easier our own wealth becomes.
Cheers, PV.
