Money, Greed, and God review: Part Three

                

                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? 

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 2

Chapter 1: Can We Build a Just Society.

Summary 

            Richards begins this chapter with a journey into his past. He traces his early flirtation with communism/socialism back to his time in a youth group with a youth pastor who was more concerned with social issues of the day more so that with the death of Christ. This is followed by an account of how we was taught communistic/socialistic principles at a college that was once Christian, but by his time had turned into a school that was more Liberal Protestant. His brief biography ends with the admission that while he loved communism/socialism as an ideology, reality soon got in the way of the intellectual ideology.

            Richards follows his history with communism/socialism with a history of communism beginning with Marx and ending with the fall of the U.S.S.R., with Richards mainly focusing on the deaths that leaders like Mao and Lenin caused. Richards then moves on combat the belief that the early church and the early pilgrims were in fact communist, by stating that the early church voluntarily gave away their possessions and that even Paul instructs that people are to work for their own food. Finally he states that communism in the early Pilgrim colony was a failure, and even they had to turn to private ownership.

            In the end Richards says that the reason communism/socialism fails is because it tries to bring Heaven to earth with God. Richards states that only God can bring about his Kingdom, and that any human attempts to bring about total equality will result in the suffering of people. But this does not mean we are to sit idly by and wait for God to bring the Kingdom, but that we have a part in it as his church. Then Richards says to compare capitalism with Heaven would be wrong, rather we must compare it to the extreme of communism and by doing so we will see that capitalism is the best answer.

Concerns/Questions

            My first concern is that Richards essentially tossed himself a slow mush ball to hit out of the park rather easily, rather than attempting to hit a fastball by taking on the much tougher criticisms of capitalism, or even less extreme versions of socialism in this chapter. The position that Richards combats is such an extreme position of communism that less than one percent of Americans agree with. A statistic given by Richards himself! I mean come on, anyone who wants U.S.S.R. or Chinese style communism/socialism is either a fool or has their head in the sand! Or maybe there are other options, but the point is that anyone can see that Lenin and Mao’s version of communism was extremely deadly; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What Richards is doing is attempting to make it look like anyone who supports anything but capitalism is supporting death and suffering. But the truth is that this is unfair, because not all people who criticize capitalism support Maoism or Lenin style communism, heck they won’t even support Marxism. Instead they realize that while capitalism is better than communism that capitalism has its own issues, issues that they desire to be fixed. Now Richards’ tactic is widely used by people from many different backgrounds, so let’s not act like Richards is the only person ever to do this. I am however more disappointed that a person with the credentials that Richards has would resort to such a tactic.

            That being said, I love that Richards brought in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” For a second I was beginning to get scared that Richards was going to pull out the, “this is how it is and it can’t be changed until the Lord comes card.” However, in this section he only declares that this type of thinking is wrong, he fails to go into how we ought to live in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” However, I am guessing that he will do that in other parts of the book. So I am not giving up on the hope that Richards will show how capitalism ought to work in the “Not Yet/Already” time period.

I do have one question though. I wonder what Richard’s view of human nature is. He implies that humanity will refuse to work unless made to do so and that is why communism/socialism fails. However, that’s about all he says. I wonder if he ever takes into account the view that it is in the nature of humans to desire mammon, or stuff, and to sometimes obtain it at any cost. I mean mammon is something that is a rival to God when it comes to what we worship. Also God knew that humanity had a coveting problem when he gave us the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wonder how coming to the realization that humans by nature like things, shiny things, expensive things, fun things; and are willing to do immoral acts (not necessarily illegal) to achieve such things, would affect his views on unregulated capitalism.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 1

So I promised a book review on Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem by Jay W. Richards. I thought it would be interesting to hear exactly how capitalism could be the solution, because honestly capitalism has caused some major atrocities in the world. Things like slavery, imperialism, and wars. To be fair, however, it has brought good as well. capitalism has allowed people the ability to have a say in who they become, rather than relegate them to the role they were born in. It is also only fair to say that true socialism/communism which seems to be the either/or alternatives to capitalism, have created many more atrocities than capitalism and has not achieved the success that capitalism has. I do need to clarify my statement above by saying that true socialism/communism is not what Americans like to call socialism that occurs in England or France, but is rather the Socialism that has occurred in places such as the U.S.S.R. or The People’s Republic of China that was employed on the road to becoming Communism, which then failed miserably.

Anyway, I am going to review this book one chapter at a time. This is due to the fact that it seems to have a lot to chew on. So I am not going to try and give my impressions on the whole book till the end. Rather, by reviewing each chapter, I hope to help take you through my thoughts and impressions as I journey through the book. So first, a little about the author.

Jay W. Richards comes from the Discovery Institute of Science and Culture. Probably one of the most right wing of right wing groups when it comes to religion and politics. He has co-authored at least four other books, two of which seem to deal with the issue of Intelligent Design. He has two Masters Degrees in Theology, Divinity, and a PhD. in Philosophy and Religion.

Introduction Review

Summary 

In the introduction, Richards begins by stating all the evil results that are visible due to a capitalistic society from ecological issues to exploitation issues. However, Richards believes that pastors do not have the right to speak out about economics, at least when it comes to capitalism, because they are foggy on the issue. Richards then states that he will attempt to work through the fog by debunking eight myths about capitalism: The Nirvana Myth, The Piety Myth, The Zero-Sum Game Myth, The Materialist Myth, The Greed Myth, The Usury Myth, The Artsy Myth, and The Freeze-Frame Myth. Richards states he will address each myth in its own chapter. He then finishes the introduction by asking the question, how is wealth created? He states the economists are unable to answer the question, but a Christian can. This is because material wealth is created by something immaterial, it is created through Spirituality. This is because we are created in God’s image, which includes creativity and by being free to use our creativity, we can create wealth. In the end according to Richards, a good Christian should be a good capitalist.

Questions and Concerns

I only have two concerns with this introduction, of which only one is of great concern, that being Richard’s idea that pastors are not qualified to speak on the issue of economics, at least when it comes to critiquing capitalism. Richards in fact picks up on a quote used by Rick Karlgaard, in which Karlgaard equates pastors who speak about economics to being eunuchs who speak about sex. I feel Richards is way off with his comparison. The first of which is that everyone who lives in a society is a part of the economic structure of that society. They may experience the structure from a different viewpoint than others, but they still experience the structure, and it is important to understand how an economic system affects people at all levels of a society, whether that viewpoint comes from an intellectual economist, a pragmatic economist, a pastor, a billionaire business owner, a small business owner, a high scale wage earner, or a small scale wage earner.

Another reason that I feel Richards is due to the fact that some pastors can even witness both the negatives and positives that an economic system produces on a global level, especially some of the pastors who are able to use their position to travel the world through the use of mission trips and see how economic on one side of the world can affect the economic system on the other side of the globe in areas that are often ignored.

Finally I feel he is wrong in his assumption, because economics is a huge issue in the scriptures. Almost one third of Jesus’ parables deal with economics, Jesus speaks more about mammon than he does of Heaven and Hell, and approximately 1 of 7 verses in Luke deal with money. Therefore, it is my opinion that pastors should have the right to speak on issues of money and ought to speak about money, especially when the topic is on how one ought to spend and earn money in a moral capacity.

A smaller issue that I have with Richards is that I don’t think he acts very kindly towards those he disagrees with. It only took him only two paragraphs to call a group of people that he disagrees with a condescending name. Now it was just “snooty liberals” but for someone who is writing a book as a Christian, I found it very unloving and very un-Christ like. I mean it is one thing to blurt it out, but it is another thing for someone to write it in a book, and go over it numerous times and allow it to remain in there. To me it shows bad scholarship from someone with a Ph

I do have some questions however. First, Richard’s says that capitalism does not promote greed. However, I wonder what he would have to say with the fact that during our last economic boom, the middle class did not gain any wealth. I also wonder how he would explain the fact that since the 1970’s the middle class has relatively maintained the same level of wealth while the upper classes have gained wealth exponentially. Now to be fair, that is not to say that capitalism has to be based on greed. But I would say that in our current society, capitalism does result in greediness. I hope he addresses these issues later on in the book.

            My last question is how does Richards come to the belief that Christians ought to be capitalists? I have heard some people make this claim, but I have never been convinced that they are right. To be fair, I have heard people claim that Christians ought to be socialist/communist. But then again, they have not convinced me either. I operate under the belief that a Christian does not have to be one or the other, rather the Christian must be willing to give to their neighbor, whether that is through the state or through charity. I am however sure that Richard’s will address this question in the book.