Socialism anyone?

You making a strawman to blow down. You cannot draw these invalid inferences from anything that I wrote.

How do you know?

 

Majoring on minors............

I made by case by questioning the central principles of capitalism--competition and survival of the fittest. How can you make the preceding statement if you read and understood my posts?

 

Ignorance

On the contrary, it is an ignorant statement that shows no understanding of the South or agrarianism. You're still stereotyping, which is not productive. Political correctness will rot one's mind so that one loses the ability to think and reason out its bounds.

 

Your opinion but...................

How do you know? Even the socilists would contest you on this.

 

Problomatic fit.........................

This is one problem--where to put Adam Smith. Although capitalists claim him, I am not sure he was a capitalist in the modern sense. There's room for debate on this one. He is more of a precursor than a full-fledged capitalist. I do not, for example, consider the Lord Proprietors as modern capitalists because they operated under a different philosophy and worldview.

 

A clear example of your statement.

 

Maybe you should go back and reread the quote I was responding to. Why play these games?

 

It's not a strawman; it's an illustration. How do I know you can't have a free market without competition? Because we live in an imperfect world. We live in a sinful world. Because not all blacksmiths are good (either at what they do or in their moral character). And so in those communities where they have a crappy blacksmith, competition will arise necessarily. Either the townsfolk will start doing their own blacksmithing or they will find someone else to do the job better. And the crappy blacksmith will need to improve his craft or find another craft that suits him better. It's all pretty simple, and I can't believe it's escaping you.

 

You've yet to show any substantive differences between capitalism and your free market system - other than the people under your system employ its use in a Christ-like manner. Well, I can easily envision capitalism being used in a Christ-like manner, but since not everyone acts in a Christ-like manner, we have abuses, just like there would be abuses under your mythical system.

 

Competition anyone?

In competition, there are winners and losers. Basically, the winners take all based on the rationale of the fit survive. Although this is an extreme case, it accurately reflects the prevailing philosophy of capitalism. On the other hand, Biblical teaching relates to each being rewarded for his own efforts. It is what he has earned as opposed to what he has taken from another. In the OT, land owners were forbidden to garner the corners of their fields whereas capitalist thinking gleans profit to the last sheaf. NT teaching follows the same pattern. The differences are subtle but they are important nonetheless. It is true that no system is without fault but I cannot understand why any believer would argue for a system that justifies the "love of money." In free market thinking, one work to provide for his own needs whereas the accumulation of wealth is the goal of capitalism. It's the focus of the whole system. Yet, I am criticized and ridiculed for speaking against what is wrong. How can this be?

 

Mental disconnect?

Right! My statement was: "One does not judge right and wrong by the benefits." It is a valid point that benefits do not justify behavior. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. This was made in response to the posts praising the benefits of capitalism whereas I was critiquing the immoral and unethical behavior encouraged by the system. So, who is playing games. Not me. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to put me in my place. If this is your game, then why don't you just let me say my piece and don't bother responding if you have nothing of substance to add. I don't mean to be rude but I am plainspoken. I don't care to continue this inane repartee.

 

It was a response to my post which is evidenced by your quoting me. Systems do not encourage unethical behavior, the evil in mans' hearts do.

If you are going to respond to me, which is evidenced by your quoting me, then expect a response. And I can assure you I am just as plain spoken as anyone. But your main defense is that every one else is either ignorant or "inane". But the fact is that no one here is any more ignorant or inane than the assertion that Capitalism and competition encourages the evil in mans' heart.

 

Nope. It is a very apt statement on the contradictions in your statements. You are the one stereotyping, we are coming up with concrete examples. Hitler was a fascist, not a capitalist. If you can't tell the difference, you are not educated enough to debate.



You lose. And you never addressed the parable of the talents.

 

No, it doesn't. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Otherwise, we would only have one soda company, one auto maker, one grocery store, etc. Competition elevates everyone. That's why the poor in the U.S. are not nearly as poor in other parts of the world. Example: PGA golfers face much tougher competition with Tiger Woods playing against them, but every golfer will tell you that Tiger has been a boondoggle to them, even if they can never win a tournament. Why? Because Tiger's appeal has increased popularity in the sport, thus elevating every player's rewards, whether they are top dog or not.

Your whole argument is a strawman against monopolies, not capitalism.

Just like capitalism.

Not capitalism. It's not a zero-sum game - go take Economics 101.

The difference is how an individual conducts himself under the system. Some will use their resources in a Christ-like manner. Some will not. Not everyone is a Christian - you do realize that, right?

Not capitalism. But again, there are going to be some people who love money, and there's nothing you can do to stop that this side of heaven.

No, it is not. The essence of capitalism is the creation of wealth, not the accumulation of wealth. Again, there will be some un-Christ-like behaviors that will include hoarding, but that is not the system's fault.

Because you are attacking the wrong thing, and your reasoning is incoherent.

 

Capitolism is the best vehicle to answer the demands placed on a market.

For example, "big box" stores like Wal-Mart are critisized for the harm inflicted on local economies and communities when small local retailers go out of business. I agree that this is harmful to local communities. However, it is a self-inflicted wound.

Wal-Mart is successfull precisely because it above all other retailers has met the market demand for low prices.

Now we can dispute over whether Wal-Mart has used unfair or predatory practices to coerce their suppliers into offering them lower wholesale prices than their competitors, but regardles of how they got there, they are there because WE demanded that they get there.

So, Paidogogos, what are you going to do about market demand? Are you going to simply forbid businesses from succeeding in meeting a consumer demand so small retailers can stay in business and stay small forever?

Like it or not, suppliers will find a way to provide the goods and services that consumers are demanding. You can stem the tide for a while, but the dam will eventually break.

Most Southrens I know have welcomed WM and McDonalds into their little towns. They've quickly incorporated them into their culture. There's all sorts of jokes and songs like "my wife left me for the WalMart greeter" and such.

Southern culture has survived and will survive the changes in the economic landscape. The anti-southern/rural bias of the mass media is a greater danger to southern culture than post-bellum capitolism ever was. And the fact that industrialism seems to have made Northeasterners cold, crass, and rude automatons, doesn't necessarily mean that industrialization of the South will make US that way.

 

He addressed it; you just don't like what he said. The parable of the talents has nothing to do with Capitalism. To believe otherwise shows Scriptural ignorance!

 

People in the Bible bought and sold land, accumulated wealth, and made profits in business. Even the King could not buy someone's land without their consent. Like Ahab and Naboth.

 

Reconsidered. Pearls before swine.

 

Didn't God restore Job's wealth ? Along with replacing his servants that were killed ?

 

I wonder what they do with this:

The owner has the right to pay whatever wages - low or high - that the laborer agrees to. In this case, someone camplained because he paid someone esle a higher wage (same amount for less work). I clearly shows that the OWNER of the means has the right to do what he will with his own property. He can lend it out for free, or he can even give it away IF HE WANTS TO, like they did in Acts 2.