Socialism in America

Yep, David, another Pond Difference I guess! I dread to think what would happen if they came across the term 'Christian Socialist'; I suppose they would think that was an oxymoron!

Whose entitlement attitude are we talking about: that of the employer as outlined by you above or the employee's desire to be able to afford the necessities of life? If it's the latter, I fail to see how that is an 'entitlement attitude'.

 

Is it also not immoral to pay more for something than it is worth? Historically that is called poor stewardship. The Puritans said that if you were worth more money, and all things equal, and you could make more money somewhere else then you had a moral obligation to be a good steward of your time to earn more money. They also said that if you paid someone more money than they are worth, you are being a bad steward of your money.

I do not want either the employee nor the employer to be a bad steward. If the employee can make more money, they should. If the employer pays too much, they shouldn't.

Again, if someone does not like their wage, capitalism works for them. They can do things to make themselves worth more money.

 

I noted the differences in an earlier post as outlined by Marx. It is still an oxymoron as socialism is not an economic theory, but an entire "social" remixing that is anti-Christian. That is, atleast according to the readings I have done on it by Marx and others.

 

Not all are able to. What about them?

For the record, I'm not advocating that an employer should pay 'more than someone's labour is worth' (to use your phrase_; what I am saying is that where circumstances - for whatever reason - result in that 'worth' being less than that needed for the necessities of life and where the employee is unable to go elsewhere, then the state should step in and render assistance to that employee. That is moral and that is the state complying with the OT prophetic injunctions to which I have already alluded.

 

That is the beauty of capitalism. That is where charities come into play. Without intervention of government, there would be more money filtered to non-profits and there would not be inflation putting at risk the lowest income people.

My step-brother is autistic (not severe but enough to prevent any real meaningful income). He will never be able to earn a living himself. However, there are many charities that help him and work with him. Now, he has worked at Kroger for 7 years. They pay him a fair wage for his abilities. Yet, charities help out Ryan too. Where I get frustrated is that the other economic theories demands we inflate our money that hurts him, but overall he does very well. He will never be wealthy, but he will be taken care of in his lifetime.

The great thing about capitalism is that if you believe we are called to help out people, you have the freedom and extra money to help. This is truly a great set-up.

 

But like I said, per Charles Dickens, the sola charitas method has been tried and found wanting.

 

The man who wrote the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was a Baptist minister and a socialist.

 

If I had NO job, then that's $2 an hour more than I had before. Collusion is an example of illegal activity which the STATE all too frequently lets their cronies get away with.

Cronyism is not capitalism. One of the legitimate roles of government is to prevent the artificial manipulation of prices in the market through monopolistic practices. But today governments are too often the primary PARTNERS of the "cartel", aiding in the monopolies' siezure of markets. Re: "too big to fail".

 

Socialists always write fiction. Some of it appears in novels; others masquerade as rational arguments.

 

The evil Glaxo invested $300 million on just malaria research, last year.
Socialism does not cure the sick, capitalism does.
Socialism does not spread the Gospel around the globe, capitalism does.
Free market investment and drive for success are both blessed in the parable of the talents. The man who buried his talent was called "evil". His method would leave the sick, sick, and the workers without jobs. Like they are in a lot of socialist places.

 

What about when corporations use their vast supply of money to get politicians to enact laws that favor them over the average working person. When they buy politicians by offering them "jobs" as consultants with extravagant salaries after they have left office. Of course this is contingent on the politicians passing laws that favor their businesses.

To me this is a perversion of what Capitalism is all about.

 

That is not Capitalism as I have defined it (which I define as Austrian Economics). That is the Keynesian Economic model, which I oppose strongly. Unfortunately, Obama and Bush held to Keynesianism and that is a major problem. If you want to argue against that system, don't call it Capitalism, call it by it's rightful name.

 

I should have read your post before I posted my response to Robert. For the record, I only read your post after I posted mine

 

I wanted to include two super geek videos that explains the differences between Keynesianism and Austrian economics (Hayek). These are great for those of us who love economics. I believe both can go over most people's head, but you will understand much of it too. These were written by a recognized PhD economist.

Video #1. The empasis here is government spending over Hayek's approach is savings. Obviously the video shows the keynes' theory is "most accepted".

Video #2 This is a better video and more understandable and hits on some very practical issues.

 

If it gives you food and clothes, that's adequate. Anything more is luxury. 1 Tim. 6:8 Just think of how out of line with Amos you are to demand your luxuries.

 

Either you have no luxuries or this is hypocritical.

 

From a Scriptural standpoint, I'm in the lap of luxury. I'm not the one saying it is unjust, and neither am I demanding a luxurious wage from my employer. Blackie's the malcontent in this thread, and you're on the verge.

 

Dickens was a socialist? :laugh:Now I've heard it all!

Dickens only wrote about what he observed. But, if you want fact as opposed to fiction, then I would recommend you read the Rowntree Report into poverty of 1901 for further enlightenment.