Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
That is "revisionist history", Mike. The original founding fathers had a bad taste in their mouth from capitalism in the form of the British East India Company. The founding fathers believed in a "commons." You maintain the commons with government. That's what government is for. It's for the things we all share. And if we don't want homeless living in our commons then were need to do things to keep people from becoming homeless. A lot of today's homeless are not there because they don't want to work but because there is no work or means of income for them. I have a revision of that Luke 19 thang you referenced. The third guy didn't spend the money his boss gave him because the other two guys invested in derivatives and were about to lose all that profit. He would still have money. :-D On 12/01/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Dixon wrote: Yet *trickle down* capitalism has been the story of America since it's inception. American capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system and with that wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system and come to the aid of those in dire straights to lift them up as well. Would the middle -east, China or India be in the economic situation they are in today had it not been for Americans spending their wealth, investing in and buying their goods and services ? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism just divides it up. You can't be charitable if you have nothing to give. The Pope may be compassionate, but he's down right ignorant.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Yet *trickle down* capitalism has been the story of America since it's inception. American capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system and with that wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system and come to the aid of those in dire straights to lift them up as well. Would the middle -east, China or India be in the economic situation they are in today had it not been for Americans spending their wealth, investing in and buying their goods and services ? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism just divides it up. You can't be charitable if you have nothing to give. The Pope may be compassionate, but he's down right ignorant. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:09 PM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" wrote: And Singapore is a city-state. Some people are now arguing that the future could belong to similar city-states rather than (old-fashioned) nation states. Like Athens and Sparta . . . plus ça change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Here's an article on why Singapore would be a good "model" for the US. There would be some major hurdles to overcome here before more of a "State capitalist" approach would work. http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/08/singapore-a-model-of-judgment/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > >Re"The Pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that >information.": > > >Unfortunately he does! > > >Look, this from Wiki: Singapore has a market-based economy - one of the freest >and most business-friendly. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, >Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least-corrupt countries in the >world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. Singapore has >the lowest infant mortality rate in the world for the past two decades. Life >expectancy in Singapore is 80 for males and 85 for females, placing the >country 4th in the world for life expectancy. Almost the whole population has >access to improved water and sanitation facilities. There are fewer than 10 >annual deaths from HIV per 100,000 people. Adult obesity is below 10%. > > >Surely to God it's at least *possible* that a let-it-rip capitalist model >could bring greater benefits to the populace than a top-down state-controlled >economy? If it's possible then it's not unreasonable for people to push for a >such a system without them necessarily being greedy rich pigs. And so without >them necessarily being on the side of the Antichrist. > > >Keep religion free from dogmatic economic positions seems a sensible approach >to me. > > > >---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: >> >> >>Well, but the principles don't change. A poor person is a poor person is a >>poor person no matter what century they live in or under what kind of >>economic system. Nobody's suggesting Jesus was preaching socialism qua >>socialism or against capitalism qua capitalism. That's a red herring. He was >>preaching in favor of generosity and against selfish greed. >> >> >>The point is to relieve poverty no matter what the cause. These days, the >>cause tends to be the greed of the masters of the capitalist system. >> >> >>Sounds like the pope has been reading (Nobel Prize-winning economist) Paul >>Krugman in the NYTimes. He makes the same point about there being no evidence >>for trickle-down economics. If it worked, there should be; it's been tried >>long enough. The pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that >>information. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: >>> >>> >>>Re"And I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor >>>and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich >>>person to get into Heaven.": >>> >>> >>>I'm with him on the rich! Some things never change. >>> >>>But Jesus was a first-century rabbi so could have no idea of the later >>>development of industrialisation, capitalism, welfare states and >>>globalisation. It is as ridiculous to wonder what a first-century person >>>would decide pro or anti socialism as it is to wonder what a first-century >>>person would decide on which car to buy, or if a first-century person would >>>prefer Copernican or pre-Copernican astronomy. >>> >>> >>>For Christ's sake - he didn't even know he was living in the first century! >>>;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Sounds to me as if he's an expert in human nature. And I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich person to get into Heaven. I don't think you've got a winner of an argument here, Seraphita. Seraphita wrote: The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in br
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
And Singapore is a city-state. Some people are now arguing that the future could belong to similar city-states rather than (old-fashioned) nation states. Like Athens and Sparta . . . plus ça change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Here's an article on why Singapore would be a good "model" for the US. There would be some major hurdles to overcome here before more of a "State capitalist" approach would work. http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/08/singapore-a-model-of-judgment/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/08/singapore-a-model-of-judgment/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re "The Pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that information.": Unfortunately he does! Look, this from Wiki: Singapore has a market-based economy - one of the freest and most business-friendly. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least-corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. Singapore has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world for the past two decades. Life expectancy in Singapore is 80 for males and 85 for females, placing the country 4th in the world for life expectancy. Almost the whole population has access to improved water and sanitation facilities. There are fewer than 10 annual deaths from HIV per 100,000 people. Adult obesity is below 10%. Surely to God it's at least *possible* that a let-it-rip capitalist model could bring greater benefits to the populace than a top-down state-controlled economy? If it's possible then it's not unreasonable for people to push for a such a system without them necessarily being greedy rich pigs. And so without them necessarily being on the side of the Antichrist. Keep religion free from dogmatic economic positions seems a sensible approach to me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Well, but the principles don't change. A poor person is a poor person is a poor person no matter what century they live in or under what kind of economic system. Nobody's suggesting Jesus was preaching socialism qua socialism or against capitalism qua capitalism. That's a red herring. He was preaching in favor of generosity and against selfish greed. The point is to relieve poverty no matter what the cause. These days, the cause tends to be the greed of the masters of the capitalist system. Sounds like the pope has been reading (Nobel Prize-winning economist) Paul Krugman in the NYTimes. He makes the same point about there being no evidence for trickle-down economics. If it worked, there should be; it's been tried long enough. The pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that information. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re "And I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich person to get into Heaven.": I'm with him on the rich! Some things never change. But Jesus was a first-century rabbi so could have no idea of the later development of industrialisation, capitalism, welfare states and globalisation. It is as ridiculous to wonder what a first-century person would decide pro or anti socialism as it is to wonder what a first-century person would decide on which car to buy, or if a first-century person would prefer Copernican or pre-Copernican astronomy. For Christ's sake - he didn't even know he was living in the first century! ;-) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Sounds to me as if he's an expert in human nature. And I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich person to get into Heaven. I don't think you've got a winner of an argument here, Seraphita. Seraphita wrote: The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. So is the Pope now an expert on economics (the dismal science)? "Trickle-down" theories could be wrong - but they could be right. It is surely possible to be a pious Christian and either support or oppose socialism. When popes claim that one or the other side is right they get dangerously close to claiming that supporters of the side they oppose are not true Christians - and so not saved. Jesus would be turning in His grave - if He hadn't risen. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
