Morals and Economics

Originally Posted by clirus

faith guardian quote

Texaco dumped pollutants in the river, ruining the livelihood of many people downstream.

Response

Was it Texaco or one of the workers at Texaco that was spaced out on coca and white rum that dumped pollutants in the river, ruining the livelihood of many people downstream?

You think such calamities are the result of one irresponsible operator, and not company policy?

I believe most companies are responsible and most environmentalists are unreasonable.

Your beliefs, like many others, are not rooted in real life experiences.

Environmentalists do nothing (but complain) so they make few mistakes.

So, you consider activism to be nothing but complaining?

I've seen environmentalists do far more than you ever have.

Companies are well aware of environmental damage and try to minimize it.

They do now... (when the public is watching)... know why?

Environmentalists just do not know how to achieve a reasonable balance.

Capitalism achieves a reasonable balance by "supply and demand". If the supply gets low and or the demand gets high prices increase till supply and demand get back into balance.

So, do think it is impossible for a capitalist to artificially manipulate the market for personal gain?

Does the word "Enron" ring any bells?

faith guardian quote

So whose fault is it Clirus? Them, for being walked all over repeatedly? Or ours, for walking over them every time they try to stand up?

Response

Are you really sure they can stand up considering all the coca and white rum?

clirus, your racism, while unsurprising coming from you, is a poor substitute for actual discourse.

__________________
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

And who, precisely, is the "they" you are referring to, Clirus?

__________________
NOTE: To posts seriously comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, I respond only with pictures of cute, fuzzy animals.

It was Texaco. Not some lone incompetent worker, the company as an entity.

Also, Coca does not dull the mind. It prevents sleep, and alerts you. Somewhat like caffeine does. Only chewing the leaves is more powerful than coffee, and the effect is somewhat different. Anyway, it doesn't dull the mind. That's why it's so popular. Why it was and is promoted by many business owners. It lets you work all night without getting tired. It allows you to push your body when it would normally tell you to stop. It removes much pain as well. But it does not 'space you out'.

Mind you use of coca is not always bad. It's excessive use (as is often promoted) that's dangerous. Occasional use is not all that harmful, it can even be very beneficial against a number of ailments. If you ever travel in South America and go up and down the andean mountains using coca tea or chewing a small amount of coca leaves can help you avoid altitude sickness, or get well from it.

And upon what do you base that assumption? The example of Texaco was the rule, not an exception to it. Dole (the fruit company) for example puts children to work in their plantations doing things like checking for snakes by the banana trees. Clearing the underbrush with machetes to keep snakes away. Of course some of the children get bitten, and die. But that's cheaper than having adults do the same work and possibly dying from snakebite. After all, adults can do more manual labor than children. Dole, in an attempt at saving money, also tends to spray chemicals on their plantations while workers are out in the fields. Without protective gear. This does of course cause health issues, sometimes severe, in the workers. But Dole does not care.

Or what about CocaCola who have on numerous plants around the world drilled into the ground, sucking up all the water destroying crops in nearby farms and in addition never bothered with the proper disposal of chemicals after the production process, just dumping it out, causing health issues and even death.

I beg to differ. Look at what [serious] "environmentalists" have accomplished. The etc group for example have done a lot of work to prevent serious harm to the environment. Work such as exposing fraud and biopiracy. The etcgroup has - while being acknowledged in academic and professional circles around the world - done much serious work to prevent much harmful behaviour.

We have a burgeoning mining industry but our miners don't die from silicosis. We extract a LOT of oil, but oir oil industry does not kill locals. We wouldn't accept it if this was not the case. Why then do we not care when it is the case abroad?

And as it is, Clirus, many people do die from starvation and/or freeze to death while their employers live in exorbitant luxury. A luxury maintained at an insane level by the maintenance of low production costs. Which in turn is acchieved by reducing or eliminating security measures, which in turn costs lives and ruins local economy.

Furthermore, many companies do mine a lot in third world countries and don't leave any wealth behind in the nation where the extraction is performed. Take a look at Potosi for example. When that mountain was a bustling silver mine the streets were paved with silver. Literally. The wealth was extreme, but the spanish crown took all the wealth for themselves. Today potosi is a shell, and the community is dirt poor. The same goes for mining cities in Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and many other nations. The 'owners' of the mines will extract all they can while leaving nothing in the locals' hands.

Some don't some do. There are many kinds of environmentalists. Academic ones, zealous semi-religious ones, daft ones, smart ones... All kinds of environmentalists. You can't lump them all together like that. Environmentalism is per now not a system which can be seen to have any strong global effects worth speaking of. Sure, it has caused an increased awareness and an increased sense of responsability among the companies as their actions are now not seeming as inconsequential as they once did. Now it matters a little more if someone finds out that they have been poisoning the local drinking water, or ruined local farming and the like.
But that responsability - which I note you praise companies for - would not have been there if not for environmentalism.

And to meet the demand sometimes the poor people in the so-called third world have to suffer. Sometimes this suffering includes being shot at. Or having your kneecaps split because you dare to demand a working environment which won't kill or maim you.

I didn't say capitalism doesn't work. It does. The same way cannibalism fills one's belly. Sure it can help you get some meat in your diet, but it causes some terrible suffering for someone else.

Does it matter? If you must know the catholic. But not exclusively. I have met protestants, pentecostals and baptists who would support it too.

Clirus, what have I swallowed? What am I saying that isn't demonstrably true?

Like I explained, Coca helps overcome fatigue. It can even eliminate it altogether. Alcohol, well, it dulls the mind and helps the worker cope with a hopeless and terrible reality. Yes, they can stand up. And they can work another day. And they are forced to work another day because of a heavy accumulation of problems due to the abuse of alcohol. An abuse which is (often) encouraged by the employers.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





"no man can serve two masters; ye cannot serve both God and mammon." - Bible (Matthew 6:24)

faith guardian quote

And to meet the demand sometimes the poor people in the so-called third world have to suffer. Sometimes this suffering includes being shot at. Or having your kneecaps split because you dare to demand a working environment which won't kill or maim you.

I didn't say capitalism doesn't work. It does. The same way cannibalism fills one's belly. Sure it can help you get some meat in your diet, but it causes some terrible suffering for someone else.

Response

I am not saying that Environmentalism is not important because the Bible says Christians must have dominion over and use the earth after they have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committed to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

What I am trying to do is to change the "noble poor and ugly rich" concept that socialists, pacificist and environmentalists preach.

I believe all people have a need for Jesus Christ , but especially the rich and the poor.

When either the rich or poor get into trouble they need to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible so that there is proof of a changed heart. Otherwise, you get into the moral hazard problem.

You can advocate that the poor are in poverty because of oppression all day and I can advocate the poor are in poverty because of a failure to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Please do not try to justify coca, white rum, abortion, etc. as necessities of the poor.

Which is more important, that a person have eternity with God or that they not suffer on earth?

I believe the Christian Lifestyle produces an eternity with God and the best possible situation on earth.

The Lady Kate quote

clirus, your racism, while unsurprising coming from you, is a poor substitute for actual discourse.

Response

By your use of the word "racism", you seem to imply all whites are Christians and all colored are Atheists.

I do not advocate racism, but I do advocate righteousness for all races.

Ugly Capitalist

Now who is the ugly capitalist? Is there any difference between stealing money through the government than stealing money directly.

If Gore's activities were non profit, then that would be another story.

Democrats make big money off of government policies. Unfortunately Republicans have been lured into that same mode of operation also.

Nothing like convincing the world there is a disaster, then owing the only company that can mitigate the disaster.

Should people in congress to be allowed to financially benefit from legislation they are voting on?

-------------------------------

Gore's Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore's firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley's top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

Except that your whole foundation is built upon a misconception. Moral hazard (or risk) has a specific definition in financial circles. Moral Hazard basically acknowledges that one of the parties may be telling fibs. Enron is a perfect example of Moral Hazard.

__________________
"We are trying to unravel the Mighty Infinite using a language which was designed to tell one another where the fresh fruit was." --Terry Pratchett

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips

Originally Posted by clirus

What I am trying to do is to change the "noble poor and ugly rich" concept that socialists, pacificist and environmentalists preach.

I don't think your "noble rich and ugly poor" approach is going to do the trick.

When either the rich or poor get into trouble they need to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible so that there is proof of a changed heart. Otherwise, you get into the moral hazard problem.

Problem is, the rich don't see the need to, and he poor usually have more immediate concerns.

You can advocate that the poor are in poverty because of oppression all day and I can advocate the poor are in poverty because of a failure to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

And all we need is one poor Christian to prove you wrong... as it turns out, we have millions.

Please do not try to justify coca, white rum, abortion, etc. as necessities of the poor.

We're not... you are.

Which is more important, that a person have eternity with God or that they not suffer on earth?

Ask a starving man if he wants a Bible or a cheeseburger... Triage, clirus, we've talked about this before.

I believe the Christian Lifestyle produces an eternity with God and the best possible situation on earth.

You also seem to believe some rather disturbing things about latinos, the poor, and various other minorities.

__________________
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

Originally Posted by clirus

The Lady Kate quote

clirus, your racism, while unsurprising coming from you, is a poor substitute for actual discourse.

Response

By your use of the word "racism", you seem to imply all whites are Christians and all colored are Atheists.

I'm not implying it... you are.

I do not advocate racism, but I do advocate righteousness for all races.

So, what was that about spending money on wine, women and song? What are the latinos who work for the oil companies poor?

Go peddle your contempt somewhere else, clirus.

__________________
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

So why do you bash environmentalism? The first decree God gave us was to take care of the earth. Would you say our actions have been along those lines? As it is many species are extinct. We're destroying much of this earth, and I don't see that as 'in line' with our instructions. Especially not given that many millions of people suffer because of our neglecting this command.

I don't know why you keep making this asinine comparison Clirus. You can't lump these three together like that. Sure, many socialists are environmentalists, and there are some pacifists too. But there are also environmentalist capitalists, like Al Gore. And capitalist pacifists also exist. The comparison is false, and utterly asinine.

As for the noble poor and ugly rich, I am not trying to make any such statement. I am merely showing you some concrete examples of why things are as they are. If you drop a rock off a cliff it will fall. If you oppress the poor they will remain poor.

There are good people who are rich. And bad people who are poor. I am not against either group of people. Possessions do not really matter in so far as my perception of a person's morality goes. What I criticize is not individuals or social classes. I criticize the system, capitalism, which is to blame for much of these problems. Capitalism has given those who are willing to abuse others a serious advantage in business. How can someone with good morals compete in a free market with someone with bad? If you're willing to use slaves to perform a job, you'll do far better economically than someone who wants to pay their workers fair wages. If you drug your workers so they can work 24 hours without a measurable decline in working efficiency and even after that not need much sleep, you gain another advantage. If someone is not willing to do that yst is competing in a market full of people who are willing... How will they prosper?
The system, capitalism, enables and encourages this abuse. It is that I have a problem with. Not rich people. Nor poor. We'll always have poor people around, but that is no excuse at all to abuse them. They are human beings and deserve to be treated fairly, as all human beings do.

So, everyone then?

That would definitely be a sign of a true conversion, yes. If you love Jesus you will love everyone, and this will be visible. This is abundantly clear in scripture.
Personally I see a serious conflict between a system which enables and encourages abuse of the poor and Christianity. Which is why I cannot for the life of me see why someone would say that Christianity has anything to do with pure capitalism.

Yet the difference Clirus, is that you have no backing for your statement. People here have shown you bible verses, historical facts and more, yet you just stick to your old (and quite empty) guns. The poor are NOT poor because of their failure to follow Christ. Was then Jesus Christ Himself failing to follow Himself? Was St. Francis of Asisi failing to follow Jesus when he rejected all his wealth, and became poor? What of the demand Jesus made of the rich and quite law-abiding rich man, to give all of his possessions to the poor and follow Jesus? What of what He told His disciples, to go carrying nothing but the clothes they wore and a walking stick as they went to do His bidding?

I am not. But you fail to realize the situation many poor are in. Not enough food to get full. No clean water. Always some form of bad health. Being thrown out of what meager home they have constructed on garbage dumps, and left without any home at all should some government official or rich investor decide their land needs another use. Working in factories, mines or plantations where you yourself as well as your coworkers (possibly friends and loved ones) are harmed, causing anything from mutilation, gradual health degradation or poisoning. Top that off with your job being a job you cannot leave because your employer so generously has loaned you money to buy food or medicines you need to keep your family alive. The interest rates are always climbing, you're hungry, your family is starving, there is no legal protection and gangs roam your streets. Your wife may be raped any day. She quite possibly has been at one occasion or another. Your daughter may be to. There is no way to pay for school for your children. For your family to have enough food everyone has to work. Sometimes even that is not enough, especially not now with the climate destabilizations and the food costs increasing. So you work harder. You work more hours, and to get your body to cope you need a stimulus. In the west or in office buildings they drink coffee, but you can't afford it, and coca is readily available. Access to it is even facilitated. And you don't know that it can be harmful. What you DO know is that it will help you work longer hours so you can provide more food for your family. Maybe your son will not have to cry himself to sleep every night from hunger.

Now you tell me I should condemn them for using a stimulant they don't know is harmful when someone else both keeps that knowledge from them and facilitates the use of the stimulant... Clirus, I will not condemn those who do not know the consequences of their actions. Especially not when they are a: fooled or forced into said actions, b: do it out of a desperate need and desire to provide food for their family. And c: when the actions do not harm others. Especially not given the effects of Coca. It does not make someone violent. It does not destroy their minds. It does destroy the body because it shuts down or inhibits the need to sleep and the sense of pain. Hence prolonged use is harmful.


There are reasons for everything, Clirus. Not always a meaning, but always a reason. I don't want to excuse abortion, drug abuse or alcoholism. But I do want to know why those problems exist, and why they are so heavily represented in the poor population. After having spent some time in slums and spoken with many broken people I know what often causes it. And I am extremely ashamed on behalf of all the west for what we have done. I cannot blame them for their abuse any more than a rapist should blame his victims for psychological issues as a consequence of that rape. Well, as far as the third world goes, we're rapists. That doesn't excuse the internal conflicts some third world countries experience. It does not excuse alcoholism or drug abuse among the poor people [we oppress]. But it sure does explain it.

So you're fine with supporting the system which keeps millions of people in a situation so desperate we westerners cannot relate to it?

I agree. But the consumerist and capitalist lifestyle is not 'the christian lifestyle'. Jesus doesn't really have anything to do with our plasma tv-s, mcdonald's, three cars per household, computers, pdas and cellphones, does He?

“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Matthew 13:44

Not that it directly pertains to Al Gore, but come on Clirus. The man KNOWS what's going on. Wouldn't he be foolish to not back up his knowledge with his money?
I don't see you criticizing Bush for his connections with the oil industry. Yet the oil industry certainly benefited from the war in Iraq.

I find it somewhat ironic that you, a capitalist, frown upon someone who invests in a business according to knowledge he possesses. Furthermore I find it interesting that you as a Christian capitalist criticize such a investment as it may very well help many, not just the investor himself.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





"no man can serve two masters; ye cannot serve both God and mammon." - Bible (Matthew 6:24)