Sorry I have not posted in a while. But I have been spending quite a few hours helping my dad start a bread distributorship. Hopefully I will be able to post more regularly. Here is the review for Richards’ second chapter of Money, Greed, and God.
Richards’ refreshingly starts his chapter by pointing out the fact that if one were to read the Bible straight through, that the person would realize that caring for the poor is essential to the Biblical message given to humanity by God. Richard’s backs up his claim with numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments. He then goes on to claim that in the end, one’s intentions won’t matter but whether or not one is successful in helping the needy. Richards then goes on to claim that many of the things we do, both as a nation and individuals, to help the poor are actually unsuccessful. As a result our failed efforts, as individuals and as a nation, are meaningless when it comes to our spiritual relationship both with God and with others. Richards then accuses those who are willing but incapable or helping as acting out so that they will feel good about themselves. To end the introduction section, Richards then tackles the issues that he believes actually hinder than help the poor, such as: the living wage, fair trade, foreign aid, and government run health care.
To end the chapter, Richards’ goes on to say that it is not the government’s job to provide assistance to the poor. Rather it is the job of the church, the family, and the neighbor to help those who are needy. He then goes on to say that the Federal Government cannot afford to help out the needy. To do so he points to the fact that government spending has gone from 20 dollars a person in 1789 to 10,000 dollars a person in 2007 (figures adjusted for inflation). He then writes in a way that seems to shoulder the $9,980 dollar difference on welfare policies.
I have some issues with Richards’ viewpoints in this chapter concerning the economic policies which he chose to look at. In fact, I could possibly write a whole chapter of a book on them. However to make things short, I am going to look at just one of them briefly, the Living Wage. In this chapter Richards’ completely trashes the idea of a minimum wage. Now, I am in agreement that the minimum wage laws are ineffective. However, the ineffectiveness does not stem with the minimum wage law itself but in reality the issue stems with those who are forced to pay the inflated wage. What the minimum wage law attempts to do is the force employers to pay a higher percentage of profits that they receive from their goods and/or services. However, this is not the case, rather than having to pay a higher percentage, business charge more for their products to cover the difference, thus making the value of the dollar less. Yet, it is interesting that Richards’ attacks the government as being at fault for causing the inflation. He puts no fault on those who already have plenty who continue to help cause inflation because they are unwilling to share more of the wealth that a company makes with the workers who help make the company what it is.
To me it is as if Richards’ is standing around, watching a guy getting punched in the stomach repeatedly which results in the guy having a stomach ache. Afterwards it is as if Richards sees another guy, who had no idea what initially happened, giving the guy some Pepto Bismol for his stomach ache. After viewing this all it seems as if Richards’ chastises the person doing something pointless rather than trying to stop the other person who is actually causing the problem by punching the guy in the stomach in the first place. In short YES! Setting a minimal wage is pointless, but it is only pointless because those who already have more than enough to live well, and sometimes more who fail part with some of their wealth in order that other people who make the company successful can have enough money for essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and medical care. In other word’s Richards’ is sending out a rallying cry against the faulty effect rather than the cause. But if we eliminate the cause, then we eliminate the effect at the same time.
I feel like Richards is fighting the wrong issue here. Maybe instead of rallying against the government, he should be rallying against those who feel they need to make grossly more than much of the rest of the world and against corporations that fail to pay enough money to their employees to live above the poverty level. Now, I am sure he would say that those at the top deserve more than those at the bottom, and I would agree with him. But the questions we ought to ask is this, how much more do they deserve, and how little do the people at the bottom deserve.
As for his feelings that the role of the government is not to help the needy, I have MAJOR issues with Richards’ thinking. Richards’ seems to say to shoulder the burden of helping the needy on the church and family only. However, if this was possible, why are where we are today? I believe that if the church and family were capable of shouldering the needs of everyone that they would have done so by now. Now this is not to say that the church and family does not try to help out the needy, but rather that they are unable to do so and that no matter how hard they try, to feel that they can get rid of all of society’s ills is unrealistic, or to use Richards’ language, “it isn’t prudent.”
Finally, my last issue is how Richards’ uses the stat that we are spending about $9,980 more than we were in the late eighteenth century as a reason to completely annihilate welfare. It’s an unfair argument, because there are other factors that contribute to the high rate of expenditures. Things like military budgets, which currently is the largest piece of the pie in our national budget. Now, I am sure we could lower military expenditures, but let’s be honest; the cost of military technology was much lower in 1789 than it was in 2007. I am sure that a mini ball and a rifle cost much less than an assault rifle and armor piercing bullets. I am sure a cannon and cannon ball cost much less than a patriot missile or a smart bomb which are loaded with technological advances that our patriots in 1789 could not have even dreamed of. Or we could look to the pay that our political leaders receive today as compared to 1789. In 1789, there was no salary being paid to the president as opposed to $400,000 a year today. Not to mention that during the early years of the presidency, all the extra expenditures came out of the president’s personal pocket and wasn’t the tax payers burden. The fact is, that there are many reasons why the government needs more money today than it did over 200 years ago, but to blame welfare programs as being the main reason is far from truthful.
In the end, I guess my problem is this, if Richards’ knows that God is concerned for the poor in the Biblical witness, why is he so willing to cut programs that deal with helping the poor, and turn a blind eye to the other areas where we spend money extravagantly?
No comments:
Post a Comment