The Bible and Capitalism

I came across this article today and thought it was quite good.  It reminded me of a blog I made some time ago when everyone seemed to be trying to portray Jesus as a Socialist.

http://silentnomoremajority.blogspot.com/2009/09/stop-twisting-bible-liberals-jesus-was.html

The main difference is the author of this article actually has skills at writing.  I have linked the article below and copied the substance for your reading pleasure.  It is a pretty decent read, at least in my opinion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577179303330474134.html


What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism 


As the Ten Commandments instruct, envy is corrosive to the individual
and to those societies that embrace it..

By ARYEH SPERO 
Who would have expected that in a Republican primary campaign the single
biggest complaint among candidates would be that the front-runner has
taken capitalism too far? As if his success and achievement were
evidence of something unethical and immoral? President Obama and other
redistributionists must be rejoicing that their assumptions about rugged
capitalism and the 1% have been given such legitimacy.

More than any other nation, the United States was founded on broad
themes of morality rooted in a specific religious perspective. We call
this the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it resides a ringing
endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor. 

Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than the
morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man
cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good
citizenship and happiness. The entitlement/welfare state is a paradigm
that undermines that noble goal. 

The Bible's proclamation that "Six days shall ye work" is its
recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine that brings
about man's inner state of personal responsibility. Work develops the
qualities of accountability and urgency, including the need for comity
with others as a means for the accomplishment of tasks. With work, he
becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that
his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him away from the
idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes
injurious to himself and those around him. 

Yet capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and
holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and
out of mammoth factories or functioning as service employees in
government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as it is
in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is
dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity,
unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew
Bible sees us not simply as "workers" and members of the masses but,
rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us
with individuality: our creativity.

At the opening bell, Genesis announces: "Man is created in the image of
God"-in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative
intelligence. Unlike animals, the human being is not only a hunter and
gatherer but a creative dreamer with the potential of unlocking all the
hidden treasures implanted by God in our universe. The mechanism of
capitalism, as manifest through investment and reasoned speculation,
helps facilitate our partnership with God by bringing to the surface
that which the Almighty embedded in nature for our eventual extraction
and activation. 

Capitalism makes possible entrepreneurship, which is the realization of
an idea birthed in human creativity. Whereas statism demands that
citizens think small and bow to a top-down conformity, capitalism, as
has been practiced in the U.S., maximizes human potential. It provides a
home for aspiration, referred to in the Bible as "the spirit of life."

The Bible speaks positively of payment and profit: "For why else should
a man so labor but to receive reward?" Thus do laborers get paid wages
for their hours of work and investors receive profit for their
investment and risk. 

The Bible is not a business-school manual. While it is comfortable with
wealth creation and the need for speculation in economic markets, it has
nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private
equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization. What it
does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a
borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and
empathy for those injured by life's misfortunes and charity.

It also demands transparency and honesty regarding one's intentions. The
command, "Thou shalt not place a stumbling block in front of the blind
man" also means that you should not act deceitfully or obscure the truth
from those whose choice depends upon the information you give them.
There's nothing to indicate that Mitt Romney breached this biblical code
of ethics, and his wealth and success should not be seen as automatic
causes for suspicion.

No country has achieved such broad-based prosperity as has America, or
invented as many useful things, or seen as many people achieve personal
promise. This is not an accident. It is the direct result of centuries
lived by the free-market ethos embodied in the Judeo-Christian outlook.

Furthermore, only a prosperous nation can protect itself from outside
threats, for without prosperity the funds to support a robust military
are unavailable. Having radically enlarged the welfare state and hoping
to further expand it, President Obama is attempting to justify his cuts
to our military by asserting that defense needs must give way to
domestic programs. 

Both history and the Bible show the way that leads. Countries that were
once economic powerhouses atrophied and declined, like England after
World War II, once they began adopting socialism. Even King Solomon's
thriving kingdom crashed once his son decided to impose onerous taxes. 

At the end of Genesis, we hear how after years of famine the people in
Egypt gave all their property to the government in return for the
promise of food. The architect of this plan was Joseph, son of Jacob,
who had risen to become the pharaoh's top official, thus: "Joseph
exchanged all the land of Egypt for pharaoh and the land became
pharaoh's." The result was that Egyptians became indentured to the ruler
and state, and Joseph's descendants ended up enslaved to the state. 

Many on the religious left criticize capitalism because all do not end
up monetarily equal-or, as Churchill quipped, "all equally miserable."
But the Bible's prescription of equality means equality under the law,
as in Deuteronomy's saying that "Judges and officers . . . shall judge
the people with a just judgment: Do not . . . favor one over the other."
Nowhere does the Bible refer to a utopian equality that is contrary to
human nature and has never been achieved. 

The motive of capitalism's detractors is a quest for their own power and
an envy of those who have more money. But envy is a cardinal sin and
something that ought not to be. 

God begins the Ten Commandments with "I am the Lord your God" and
concludes with "Thou shalt not envy your neighbor, not for his wife, nor
his house, nor for any of his holdings." Envy is corrosive to the
individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw
over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

Rabbi Spero has led congregations in Ohio and New York and is president
of Caucus for America.

The Welfare State and The Selfish Society

I came across this article by Dennis Prager this morning and it "hit the nail on the head"

The Welfare State and the Selfish Society

In the contemporary world, where left-wing attitudes are regarded as normative, it is a given that capitalism, with its free market and profit motive, emanates from and creates selfishness, while socialism, the welfare state and the "social compact," as it is increasingly referred to, emanate from and produce selflessness.

The opposite is the truth.

Whatever its intentions, the entitlement state produces far more selfish people -- and therefore, a far more selfish society -- than a free-market economy. And once this widespread selfishness catches on, we have little evidence that it can be undone.

Here's an illustration: Last year, President Obama addressed a large audience of college students on the subject of health care. At one point in his speech, he announced that the students will now be able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. I do not ever recall hearing a louder, more thunderous and sustained applause than I did then. I do not believe that if the president had announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered that the applause would have been louder or longer.

It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one's parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate.

Throughout American history, the natural -- or at least hoped for -- inclination of a young person was to become a mature adult, independent of Mom and Dad, and to become a grown up. But in the welfare state, this is no longer the case.

In various European countries, it is increasingly common for young men to live with their parents into their 30s and even longer. Why not? In the welfare state, there is no shame in doing so.

The welfare state enables -- and thereby produces -- people whose preoccupations become more and more self-centered as time goes on:

How many benefits will I receive from the state?

How much will the state pay for my education?

How much will the state pay for my health care and when I retire?

What is the youngest age at which I can retire?

How much vacation time can I get each year?

How many days can I call in sick and get paid?

How many months can I claim paternity or maternity care money?

The list gets longer with each election of a left-wing party. And each entitlement becomes a "right" as the left transforms entitlements into the language of "rights" as quickly as possible.

What entitlements do, and what the transformation of entitlements into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait -- gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"

Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.

They succeed in part because demonizing conservatives and their values is a left-wing art. But the truth is that capitalism and the free market produce less selfish people. Teaching people to work hard and take care of themselves (and others) produces a less, not a more, selfish citizen.

Capitalism teaches people to work harder; the welfare state teaches people to want harder. Which is better?

THE GREAT THANKSGIVING HOAX

by Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing thePlymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

* * * * *

This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985

In Memory of The U.S. Constitution...A Eulogy

What can I say about the U.S. Constitution that others do not already know. I am not sure I can find the proper words to describe the pain we are all feeling at it's passing.

Our Constitution had an amazing life even though it was rather short. It was the kind of friend that stands by you when you need somebody to be there. So many times in my life it protected me from tyranny, oppression, and corrupt government influence.

I remember once The Constitution shared with me that it's intent was not to define what rights I had as an individual, but was formed by the people of this nation to tell the government it's limitations in our lives. That was the selflessness and Godly inspired message of our Constitution.

What is it that we remember when we think of The Constitution? I think everyone who knew it very well would agree with me on this. The Constitution was by the people and for the people. It was the kind of constitution that would protect every individual's liberty at all costs. That is what I will truly miss about our Constitution. It could always make me feel in control of my own destiny when I feared the possibility of the government taking it away. It always gave me security that if I put forth the effort, I would be rewarded; and those that did not put forth the effort, would not. That was the trademark of Our Constitution. It always promoted equal opportunity to succeed on our own, rather than equal portions to all as deemed necessary by the government.

The Constitution's death was not sudden. It was a long, painful process that; unfortunately, could have been avoided. Many saw the warning signs of the sickness that took Our Constitution, but few wanted to take the extra effort needed to save it. Our Constitution was too young but as it slowly occurred to me I have realized that Our Constitution indeed lived it's life wonderfully. Our Constitution was well-loved and admired for many years, and it was painful to watch it slowly succumb the past century to the cancer of socialized laws which have created a welfare state in which people now feel entitled to whatever lifestyle they choose, compliments of the government; via the few who are still willing to work for a living. Welfare, Social Security, government healthcare. Ultimately, this is what stopped the "free market" heart of Our Constitution and caused it's death.

I will forever be grateful to have known The Constitution, as there has been no document before and will never be another document like it. I will forever be grateful that I was blessed enough to spend 38 years of my life with it. All the memories I have shared will forever be remembered and cherished. It will forever live in my heart.

What I Believe...Whether It Offends You or Not.

In this day and age, it is difficult to get people to clearly tell you what they believe and support. It's pretty much impossible to get this honesty from politicians. I have decided to air out my views on a variety of topics, at the risk of possibly alienating a few. I believe it is important to honestly give people an assessment of where you are coming from, and it is also a nice way to rant a little, so here it goes...The Manifesto of Ron, if you will:

1. I BELIEVE AMERICA IS GOOD...that's right, contrary to the worldwide "apology tour" Barack Obama has been on since assuming duties as President, I believe values and principles established in the founding of this great nation have changed the world in a very positive way over the past 234 years. Have we made mistakes as a nation? Of course, but we most assuredly do not owe the world any apologies for our track record of promoting liberty, removing tyranny, feeding the hungry, rescuing every third world nation from natural disasters, etc., etc.

2. I BELIEVE IN CAPITALISM...Sorry Michael Moore! As much as you attempt to villainize it, you are a huge hippocrite, as you could not have gotten where you are today without it. All you Hollywood leftist, elitist morons, listen up! I know most of you have the IQ of Forrest Gump, but you need to know that "evil capitalism" you lobby against every day is what has created your multi-million dollar mansions, cars, servants, and your ability to fly off to Africa on a whim and adopt little Ndugu for your nanny to raise. Do some people get ahead in a capitalist system via corrupt means, and at the expense of the "little guy?" Yes, but as a whole the system of capitalism is the only long term successful system there is, and it is most definitely the fairest system. It gives the individual all of the liberty and freedom to pursue and accomplish whatever goals and dreams they may have in life. It merely requires that each individual add their own EFFORT and HARD WORK, which seems to be a hangup for many.

I will continue with, " The Manifesto of Ron" tomorrow with points 3 and 4...and maybe even 5 if I'm feeling froggy, but for now I must go to work to make a living for myself and my family. For you socialists, it's that little thing I mentioned about "effort and hard work." It's a liberty the lazy and non-producing population of our country are more than willing to give away in return for the government taking care of their needs. I end Part 1 of my manifesto with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

Part 2 tomorrow

ALWAYS WATCH WHAT THE LEFT HAND IS DOING…LIBERALS ARE AMBIDEXTROUS!!

The last two weeks have been incredible! As posted earlier, I’ve really started to regain my faith in the people of this country. It has been wonderful to see the banding together of conservatives and the rallying cries of Americans who still believe in the Constitution of this great land. The townhall meetings have been, and continue to be a great demonstration of freedom and democracy in action. Three months ago I feared that our country was going to sink into socialism without so much as a whimper. I am happy to say that I was mistaken.

With everyone currently focused on defeating this “hostile takeover” of our freedom to choose healthcare for ourselves, we need to ensure we are watching what President Obama’s left hand is up to. I have noticed when liberals have all of us so focused on one issue, they tend to quietly be up to no good in another area, hoping we won’t notice.

Last month President Obama named Mark Lloyd the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission. Okay, first things first…chief diversity officer?!?!?! Really?? Seriously??? That is an actual title for a real occupation?? That is such an incredibly stupid title that I am physically laughing out loud as I am typing this. What do you do Ron? I am the chief diversity officer for the Marine Corps. What a joke! Speaking of the USMC, there is no more diverse organization in our country than the US military. We are recruited from all cultures, backgrounds, financial classes, races, and ethnicities. We accomplish the most difficult of tasks that are physically and mentally exhausting, in environments much more demanding than any boardroom, and we do it successfully every day without the need for any chief diversity officer, but apparently the FCC needs one.

I apologize for ranting away from the point I am wanting to make, but really…CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER!!! Okay, I am laughing by myself again. I’ll get back to the point.

President Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to this position with the FCC. You know...the FCC, the government entity that controls the airwaves. Now it is already well known to all Americans that the mainstream television media is very biased…Say it ain’t so!!! No, really, they are just a tad bit biased towards the left. So let’s look at the history behind the latest Obama czar (substitute “stooge” for “czar” if you prefer) to determine what direction he may look to take the FCC as it’s CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER…hahahaha!! Step aside everyone!! Make way for the CDO!!

In 2007, Mark Lloyd co-authored a report titled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” which you may read the contents of at:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

In this report Mr. Lloyd…sorry, I mean CHIEF Lloyd, stated some very troubling things…unless, of course, you live in a country like North Korea, China, or Venezuela, where the state controls what the media is allowed to report to the people. I have included some of the quotes from this report below:

“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system”

Yes, this genius…I mean CHIEF, has concluded that the 10 to 1 ratio of conservative talk radio programming to statist, I mean progressive talk radio is caused by the lack of government regulation of the airwaves…Oh yes he did!!! Chief Castro over here doesn’t recognize the rule of supply and demand, he only recognizes the need for more government enforcement over our freedom to listen to what we want to as Americans. But he goes on…

“This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public inter­est obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”

The first paragraph is just the everyday typical liberal mush…”to better meet local and community needs” is their pompous attitude that they know better than we do what we need on the radio. Doesn’t capitalism as well as the rule of supply and demand take care of that already? If a local community really, really wanted more liberal (funny they call it “progressive” throughout the report) programming in their area, wouldn’t a smart business person see the income potential and put such a station on the air?

Uhh, yes, his first idea is honestly to have the government control who can and cannot own a radio station…no conflict of interest there!!!

Yes, your eyes are correct…the last idea is to assess fines for radio station owners that do not air the programming the government wants them to. Not only that, they will take the money from the fines and give the money to public broadcasting (NPR). So it’s broadcasting’s version of “redistribution of wealth.” It makes all the sense in the world. Take money from successful business owners who provide a product in high demand from the American people, and give the money to failing, government owned radio stations that nobody listens to.

Mr. Lloyd, like President Obama, is on the record as saying they are not interested in re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Well, of course they aren’t! Enough Americans have heard of the Fairness Doctrine by now. It wouldn’t be popular to support it. But if we take the Fairness Doctrine out of its packaging, rename it; say, the DIVERSITY in Broadcasting Act, or something similar…and re-attach the same regulations as before, the American people would support that, right? After all, it’s DIVERSITY!! Anything with the word “DIVERSITY” in it has to be good, right? Anything with diversity in the title has to be supported, lest the protestor be labeled a racist.

I could go on a rant all day about this but the point I’m making is we have to be great multi-taskers. At the same time we are organizing our resistance to this unconstitutional healthcare fiasco, we have to pay attention to the other maneuvers being initiated by the statists in Washington, lest we end up bamboozled (I love that word and try to use it whenever possible)

A Sample (My response to the mortgage company bailout)

I don't have a degree in economics, but I understand a few things. The rules of free market capitalism would dictate that there are more than enough investors with the pocketbooks to support the formation of new mortgage/loan organizations. The "new" mortgage companies would buy up the "good" mortgages that are being paid. Individuals with loans which are currently in default would get a little "tough love" lesson in finance and responsibility for actions by being removed from their home, as anyone should be that isn't making their payments.

I would stop making my mortgage payments today if I knew the government would pay my mortgage for me. It's really bad business to take money from Americans who are being responsible with it, and transfer it to Americans who aren't. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that is a bad investment; however, that is exactly what the government has done by bailing deadbeats out with our tax money.