[Bryan]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Maybe eating up the opposition? Does "95%" ring a bell? Rockefeller's company would actually work hand-in-hand with the ever evolving railroad industry, make a "trust" settlement with them, and create a monopoly on any new oil stores that would eventually be found. Economically, Rockefeller... again termed "Reckafellow" by Carnegie... was known for his lack of care for his opposition and the extent he would take to destroy them. How can this be "Christian?" how can this be "ethical?"

one, it is important to remember that Christian and ethical are not the same. Second, ethics is determined by law. So, even if I do something mean but legal, it is ethical, though it may not be Christian. Furthermore, how is eating up the opposition unchristian, where does the bible demand equal opportunity in business? Furthermore, where does the bible teach that monopolies are sinful?

What about his treatment of employees? This is certainly unChristian as Rockefeller was known for his "Gospel of Wealth" (proclaiming that "God gave me my money"... better emphasized by Andrew Carnegie ). Interesting, as his workers were striking not only against ridiculously low wages (a system was set that they could live in company housing... but precious few actually got out because of the debts they owed), but a lack of health care (who can afford a doctor if you're struggling to buy food?), child labor (education? what?), 14 hour workdays, and unsafe working conditions, all the while as Rockefeller soon became one of the richest men in human history with his oil empire.

where does the bible require a minimum wage? where does the bible require short workdays? or no child labor, or safe working conditions? You are claiming it is unChristian, support it with scripture.

Could the government do anything? Of course not. Our government's lassiez-faire form of economy (and monetary gifts from the robber barons) forced our government to keep its mouth shut.

the government did do something, its called the progressive era.

Please, actually read your history and realize what is being talked about before you wonder about unethical and unChristian business practices.

if you want to discuss this topic fine, but please do not resort to implied ad hominem attacks.

Astute economics is Christian (and smart), reckless and selfish economics is not. Especially when people's lifes are in danger (eg: The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire for the most common example).

I am well aware of what happened at the fire, they couldn't get out because their bosses locked them in. This was, obviously, wrong

History, my friend, is the best proof available , and I must say I have it on my side (against lassiez-faire capitalism).

Literary works throughout the 20th century give voice to this proof, for example
The History of Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell (Wikipedia link), The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, and Octopus by Frank Norris were all contempoaries of each other, answering with progressive political style of the day to the unjust conditions and lack of control on big business in America. Take a look at Rockefeller's record of no-nonsense economics... I believe my statement by Kennedy et al has plenty of non-specific proof if you want "real" proof go here. Rockefeller was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust acts, but the government did nothing to prevent his exponential growth.

I am against anti-trust legislation. If a company can legitimately buy out other companies and increase its market share to 80%+, then I call that good business.

Please... before you say I have no credible proof, read the history of the day first.

it is not my job to do your research and provide your evidence in an argument.

I suggest Kennedy et al's account of the robber barons and corrupt politics of the day, at the same time The Jungle by Sinclair is a good way to see how a simple work of "fiction" (based on actual families in early 1900's Chicago) changed the nation's policies.

I am well aware of the jungle, I have read it at least twice.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Bryan

one, it is important to remember that Christian and ethical are not the same. Second, ethics is determined by law. So, even if I do something mean but legal, it is ethical, though it may not be Christian. Furthermore, how is eating up the opposition unchristian, where does the bible demand equal opportunity in business? Furthermore, where does the bible teach that monopolies are sinful?

where does the bible require a minimum wage? where does the bible require short workdays? or no child labor, or safe working conditions? You are claiming it is unChristian, support it with scripture.

Yes, but in the Christian ethic (I'm using the term ethic here in terms of a basis for moral reasoning); is it "ethical" to treat workers unfairly, in a VERY unequal balance of power? Look at the church, what relationship do we have to one another? We're not CEO's, middle management, forement, and laborers, we're brothers and sisters under one Father. If the cost of living is too great for the minimum wage, and a company can do this (as Rockefeller's Standard Oil DEFINATELY could have managed to work out), then how is this NOT unChristian? As far as Scripture, I would say it is as simple as Matt. 22:36-40.

the government did do something, its called the progressive era.

Which quickly died out leading to more lassiez-faire government.

if you want to discuss this topic fine, but please do not resort to implied ad hominem attacks.

I apologize, I was just trying to get the historical points across, and I didn't have enough time to list them. Forgive me.

I am well aware of what happened at the fire, they couldn't get out because their bosses locked them in. This was, obviously, wrong

Ok...but at the same time this "obvious" wrong finds itself perking its little head up whenever men want to make large amounts of easy capital, correct? It's even safe to say that these working conditions are a direct result of uncontrolled capitalism.

I am against anti-trust legislation. If a company can legitimately buy out other companies and increase its market share to 80%+, then I call that good business.

Even if this includes paying off government workers and sending American jobs overseas? Is "good business" in fact "good" even if it destroys entire low income communities? Is there a real way to "legitimately buy out other companies and increase ... market share to 80%+" while still accomplishing this "legitimately"?

When it comes to researching my points for me, I'm not asking you to. I'm simply giving you sources to realize that in fact much of American capitalism has involved corruption and a complete lack of business ethics. In the news we see this today, with Martha Stewart and Enron. While businessmen like Carnegie did give to the public, their own workers were caught up in a sort of near slavery to the system, being forced to work until death. Again, works like Sinclair's give voice to this, a tainted, sour, and bitter "American Dream" for many new immigrant workers.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by H.M. Murdock

Now ordinarily, I don't have a problem with that idea. In fact, it's really the only way to conduct a market fairly. Here is where the first mistake of capitalism is made; it makes a giant leap from applying this theory of estimable value to consumer goods to applying it to money.

How is currency any different than any other object that gets traded?

Because of this, the richer a nation becomes the poorer it really is. This is because people have a lot of dollar bills that, because there are so many, are not worth as much because hey! The market is flooded with green, yo.

The only way for the number of dollar bills in a nation to keep increasing in the manner you're suggesting is for someone to keep printing them... Obviously the more dollar bills there are in a system the less they'll be worth. The solution to this is to try to keep the number of dollar bills in the economy constant. That way, as the nation's economy grows, the value that a single dollar possesses will increase. The wealth of the nation will increase while the number of dollar bills in the economy remains constant.

Should not the currency of a sovereign nation also be sovereign, immune to the whims of an ignorant market of supply and demand? Yes.

This is impossible. Supply and demand will always determine the value of the currency. 2 dollar bills are supposed to be worth 2 dollars, but many people see them as possessing greater value than that because of the low supply of them. Therefore, a lot of people keep the 2 dollar bills instead of spending them because they are worth more to them. No matter how the government tries to regulate the currency, the value of the currency will always be determined by the people who trade it.

It is, theoretically speaking, the best way to ensure the value of any given currency over long periods of time. An example of this might be the fact that the Euro is vastly superior to the United States Dollar.

Because the Euro has been around for a much longer period of time than the dollar...

[RhythmicAndy]

The problem with socialism is that it works great in theory, but history has shown that it fails and in the extreme case of communism corrupts. Its a strong federal government versus a small federal government. More freedom ver. less. In socialism you have the problem with all the money being hoarded by the top politicians and officials. In this system there is less work ethic and incentive to work for what you earn because you have less control over your financial future.

Capitalism is brutal yes, in the sense that it's all up to you. You have for the most part complete economic freedom. You can choose to work hard to get somewhere, or if you're immature and lazy you're going to be poor. Over 90% of the poverty you see in America is due to that persons responsibility or lack of. Those who are millionares have most likely gone to college worked hard and earned their success.

But ultimately people want freedom more than anything else. A person ould rather be poor and free, than rich but controlled.

On the whole currency note, that is just basic supply and demand economics. You have that in every market, that basically controls the value. If your gov. like in communism controls the supply it hurts the market more than it does any good because you can't change the demand. The best way to improve an economy is to put more new money in it. As opposed to (ex. ) in which money is traded and no new profit is gained.

Thats my take on things, as tough as capitalism may be, life is tough, you pay for what you get.

[+Donny]

The best way to improve an economy is to put more new money in it. As opposed to (ex. ) in which money is traded and no new profit is gained.

The boost to the economy from a quick burst of new money is temporary. IIRC, it is a result of how slow the market responds to the unexpected inflation rate. If people expect a certain rate of inflation, the dollar has a certain value. However, if there is unexpected inflation of the supply of dollars, the demand curve takes time to adjust to it and for a time. At least that's what I am vaguely remembering from that economics textbook. It also tied in interest rates on loans, as inflation obviously affects that a lot.

Anyway, the point is that not only is this temporary, but it increases the expected inflation rate. Businesses, banks, etc. plan on an estimated inflation rate, and if they grow to expect a higher rate, trying to lower it back down after a quick burst has the opposite effect: it hurts the market. So, basically, using inflation to "help" the market reduces one to a slippery slope of higher and higher inflation rates.

[bkugotit]

Firts, I have to admit that I am a devout Laissez-Faire Capitalist and everything I say is and will be biased. It's so bad that my favorite book is Atlas Shrugged. Run screaming, Socialists. Now, I will admit that Capitalism leaves room for mistreatment of workers, and even brutality. Show me one thing that doesn't allow for brutality. It's called human nature. Now, why I dislike Socialism more than Capitalism. Communism. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that Socialism and Communism are one and the same. I'm saying that Socialism destabilizes a government such that it may crumble to Communism. Look at China and the former USSR. They did not become totalitarian governments on purpose. Socialism opened their governments to the will of one crazy man, in these cases Mau and Stalin. Remember Trotsky? If he had succeded Lenin, all would have been fine and the Russians would have lived their happy little live basking in the laziness of Socialism (more on that later). However, Socialism allowed Stalin to pave his way to the top, and shove Trotsy out of the way as a traitor. Then think of Stalins successors, all of them power hungry. Was it a coincidence that they rode to the top, and they all were somewhat crazy? This is due to a defect in the theory of Socialism. Socialism lets the second handers take all the spoils of the creators. Every bully is also a stealor, stealing human rights. Isn't it strange how every single successor of Stalin was a bully?
Now, to the real meat of the matter, how socialism itself is an atrocity. In Socialism, all share everything. If one needs something, he can just ask for it, and the other person is obligated to give it to him. So, if everyone owns everything, no one owns anything. It is a delightful little paradox. Every human being has the right to make a living, and survive. However, to survive, one must own something, such as land to produce. If one does not own anything, he does not have the right of survival. This should not be! Socialism is based upon death. That is my belief. If you can sway my belief, I would love it, because everyone I know loves the theory.

[JerryLove]

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that Socialism and Communism are one and the same. I'm saying that Socialism destabilizes a government such that it may crumble to Communism. Look at China and the former USSR. They did not become totalitarian governments on purpose. Socialism opened their governments to the will of one crazy man, in these cases Mau and Stalin.

All countries are socialist to some extent (except countries like Somalia which lack any government). Remember Canada, England, Sweeden?

Further, you'll find many a non-socialist totalitarian government, they are rank throughout history, from ancient egypt to modern Iran.

Socialism lets the second handers take all the spoils of the creators. Every bully is also a stealor, stealing human rights.

Like Bush, who likely can't spell "democratic republic" got where he is though mocking people on death-row, bold-faced lies, passing freedom-taking laws (such as the patriot act) which he promised he would not, and claiming to be, as the Eastern-born, Harvard educated, son-of-a-president govenor of Texas, to be "the outsider".

Isn't it strange how every single successor of Stalin was a bully?

Gorbachev?

Now, to the real meat of the matter, how socialism itself is an atrocity. In Socialism, all share everything. If one needs something, he can just ask for it, and the other person is obligated to give it to him.

Where did you invent this idea from? It's simply untrue.

So, if everyone owns everything, no one owns anything. It is a delightful little paradox. Every human being has the right to make a living, and survive. However, to survive, one must own something, such as land to produce.

I though that Jesus had his deciples sell their property and give the proceeds to the poor. They went around to minister for the good of society and were, in turn, supported by that society.

That's what communism ideally does (you keep saying "socialism", but you don't appear to be actually discussing it). Everyone contributes in the way that they can for the good of society, and society ensures taht everyone has all that they need.

[RhythmicAndy]

Basically, socialism fails because the economy is only as strong as the weakest person, and there is no motivation to work. Another downfall of socialism(this is speaking more to commmunism) is its vulnerablility to revolution, eventually every communist nation will revolt because it creates more lower class citizens where all revolutions come from.

[JerryLove]

An interesting argument since the purpose of communism was to remove the class structure. Communism came about as the result of revolutions by the lower class in capatalist countries. Specificcly, unrestrained capatalism results in the extremely rich and the extremely poor (the latter living in shanty-towns).

It was only governmental minimum wage (socialism), governmental protection of worker safety (socialism), and govronmental protection of unions (socialism), that brought us out of the bad-old-days of the turn of the century and prevented just te revolutions you are talking about from happening here.

The reality is, what appears to work best, falls somewhere between the extremes of pure capitalism and pure socialism.

["BrooksB"]

Jerry's got a point...

Capitalism, according to theory, provides for the most efficient allocation of resources.

Communism, according to theory, provides for the most equitable allocation of resources.

Hmm... We have to make a trade-off somewhere, and my personal opinion is that we should lean more towards capitalism than communism, though I see the importance of more equity than capitalism naturally provides. The more we produce, the more even a poor man will be allocated (which is why I lean more towards capitalism).



But, to the original post, we must understand the difference between nominal and real values. A nominal value would be the number of actual dollars spent, while a real value would be the actual worth of those dollars based on some standard that we would compare all nominal values with. It's a basic economic idea that may shed some light on the question.