Case Example: Billionaires, Banks, Governments, Capitalism, and Political Parties

[SuperCloud]

I'm not a communist and not even really a socialist but this a case example of my problem with capitalism (and any supply-side economics, aka, "trickle down effect"). Rio de Janeiro and filthy water in what should be a beautiful area.

The two worst effects on the earths environment ever has hands down been capitalism and communism and their tangled relationship with science and technology. It's said that communism was the worst of the two because capitalism would only severely damage the environment if there was a profit to be made.

The Inca civilization was how many centuries ago? And the Incas were socialist to the point no one went homeless or hungry. Any elderly person with no means was simply given a place to live and food to eat. The Mayan on the other hand destroyed their civilization through what historians believe was a combination of civil wars and deforestation. I'm no tree huger. But I also believe in reasonably keeping some of the majestic qualities of our rivers, lakes, and forests.

So, what do we learn form history? What about those Egyptian pyramids that have lasted centuries, or the remains of Greek and Roman architecture?

How many billionaires and other super-rich people live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil? In terms of legacy, being cognizant of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and the Incas as well.... if capitalism were so good then why haven't the super-rich of Rio simply, voluntarily, forked over the "clams" to the water and sewage of Rio for at least the international Olympics coming?

Furthermore, banks can approve loans for cases like this, governments can take out loans for public health and for improvements in the aesthetics of shared, common spaces like this. That's good debt as opposed to financing a war on drugs or financing wars in some Middle Eastern country. And political parties? Merely religions that proclaim have faith in us for your earthly salvation.




Full article: Rio De Janeiro Is Breaking One Big Promise That Helped It Land The 2016 Olympics - Business Insider

Brazilian officials' promise to cut the flow of pollutants into the bay by 80 percent was a key part of the city's Olympic bid document and widely held up as among the most enduring legacies of the games. But with just 1 1/2 years to go before the showcase event, it has become increasingly clear that the target wouldn't be met.

Read more: Rio De Janeiro Is Breaking One Big Promise That Helped It Land The 2016 Olympics - Business Insider
​

Sailors' associations have expressed reservations about water quality as well as the garbage, both of which they say could harm sailors' health. Olympic sailors have described the 2016 venue as a "sewer," complaining of the stench at the events' main venue, the Gloria Marina, and describing having to dodge floating sofas, animal carcasses, and plastic trash bags that foul rudders in the open waters. A few sailors have said they got sick after falling into the bay.


Correa said he wasn't sure whether Olympic authorities have been informed that the cleanup pledge will not be met.


With most of the sewage in the greater Rio area flowing untreated into area rivers, its showcase beaches and the bay, Correa estimated a $3.8 billion investment would be needed to bring sewerage to the entire metropolitan area. With no timetable for the release of such sums, it's unclear when that might happen, he said.

Read more: Rio De Janeiro Is Breaking One Big Promise That Helped It Land The 2016 Olympics - Business Insider
​

 

[marshlewis]

The Earth was made for man and Man was made to conqueror and rule it. Isnt this what is generally accepted as the central theme of mankind. Its only in the last 50 years or so that this mythology has started to be questioned by environmentalists and others.

 

[SuperCloud]

The Earth was made for man and Man was made to conqueror and rule it. Isnt this what is generally accepted as the central theme of mankind. Its only in the last 50 years or so that this mythology has started to be questioned by environmentalists and others.

The destruction of the environment on wide scale began during the Industrial Revolution and is specifically attributable to the advancements in science, technology, the consumerist culture of capitalism and atheist communism in the East.

I can see you never took an environmental science course because communist China is one of the prime examples used. The government of China is officially atheist. You can regard it as atheist fundamentalism or atheist theocracy if you like.

Christianity was not the cause to the massive scale assault on the environment. Furthermore, there is a line of reasoning in Christianity towards the environment called "stewardship." And given humans are arguably the greatest keystone species (the only species that practices medicine, engages in the sciences and technology, has written language and so on) on planet earth, it makes sense for humans to be the species on earth that assumes the leadership role as the stewards of the environment.

It makes no sense for an atheist to blame prayer (which does not exploit the earths resources beyond the caloric energy requirements it takes to fuel the body), Protestant Sunday service, or the Orthodox Divine Liturgy for assaults on the environment whilst the atheists bang away on the keyboards of their mass produces computers made up of glass, metal, and synthetic materials.

The real problem is not really religion nor atheism. The real problem has been the ways both capitalism and communism have functioned in the world. There are Chinese cities with such high levels of air pollution that it makes breathing and living in those cities intolerable at times. That has nothing to do with some American Protestant boy praying to God he gets a new bike for his birthday or passes some math exam in school.

 

[SuperCloud]

^But my greater point in post #1 was about the fact the greatest number of people don't benefit from capitalism.

Capitalism does provide the ability for upward mobility (which is a good thing I think) and because a minority of the population can become wealthy even if they are not born into wealth, capitalism allows for the creation of many kings and queens.

But in traditional monarchy kings and queens assumed responsibilities for the masses. They also financed the bulk of their own wars (which is why more wars, and far bloodier wars are waged by democracy because tax payers or future generations pay for it). Whereas under capitalism you have a lot more kings and queens, and becoming a billionaire you are a mega-king or mega-queen, but assume zero responsibility for the masses.

Even the Democratic governments are jerk-offs, financed by the mega-kings and mega-queens, they have convinced the masses that governments ought go in financial debts to wage wars but not to improve the infrastructure, public health, and aesthetic landscape of their cities and nation. Common spaces in which all the citizens share.

But if the governments don't go into debt to finance these projects, then why don't the mega-kings and mega-queens assume their kingly and queenly roles roles of responsibility, and fork up the money for the projects?

Their great selling point is to convince the addicted gamblers otherwise known as citizens of democracies, citizens of capitalism, that if they keep faith in the lottery system they too might one day strike it rich and join the elite club of kings, queens, and mega-kings and mega-queens. You just need to keep your cards on the table and keep putting your money on the gamblers tables.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Any bit of technology has been made in the last 10-15 years is designed to purposely fail after awhile.

 

[marshlewis]

The destruction of the environment on wide scale began during the Industrial Revolution and is specifically attributable to the advancements in science, technology, the consumerist culture of capitalism and atheist communism in the East.

I can see you never took an environmental science course because communist China is one of the prime examples used. The government of China is officially atheist. You can regard it as atheist fundamentalism or atheist theocracy if you like.

Christianity was not the cause to the massive scale assault on the environment. Furthermore, there is a line of reasoning in Christianity towards the environment called "stewardship." And given humans are arguably the greatest keystone species (the only species that practices medicine, engages in the sciences and technology, has written language and so on) on planet earth, it makes sense for humans to be the species on earth that assumes the leadership role as the stewards of the environment.

It makes no sense for an atheist to blame prayer (which does not exploit the earths resources beyond the caloric energy requirements it takes to fuel the body), Protestant Sunday service, or the Orthodox Divine Liturgy for assaults on the environment whilst the atheists bang away on the keyboards of their mass produces computers made up of glass, metal, and synthetic materials.

The real problem is not really religion nor atheism. The real problem has been the ways both capitalism and communism have functioned in the world. There are Chinese cities with such high levels of air pollution that it makes breathing and living in those cities intolerable at times. That has nothing to do with some American Protestant boy praying to God he gets a new bike for his birthday or passes some math exam in school.

Did you realize that When Civilization began in Iraq the whole area was a temperate forested climate. The mythology of Mans ownership of the Earth is older than recorded history. This is why the colour of your political or religious team dosnt matter one bit to the rules of the game.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Did you realize that When Civilization began in Iraq the whole area was a temperate forested climate. The mythology of Mans ownership of the Earth is older than recorded history. This is why the colour of your political or religious team dosnt matter one bit to the rules of the game.

I don't recall reading about any ancient middle eastern religion or culture believing that they owned anything, but were victims to the whims of the gods and/or spirits around them.

 

[marshlewis]

I don't recall reading about any ancient middle eastern religion or culture believing that they owned anything, but were victims to the whims of the gods and/or spirits around them.

I would suggest that belief in the ownership of the earth (or the world) is so central to civilisation that it would be difficult to find an example where its not the case.
No matter what religion or culture you look at in civilized history you have a system of ownership Identical to how we practice it today, yet it is an arbitrary definition. To highlight this just think about how you would define an uncivilized culture.

 

[SuperCloud]

Did you realize that When Civilization began in Iraq the whole area was a temperate forested climate. The mythology of Mans ownership of the Earth is older than recorded history. This is why the colour of your political or religious team dosnt matter one bit to the rules of the game.

Technically, I don't think Catholicism teaches that man owns planet earth. I'm not sure what the Orthodox, Protestants, or others teach on this matter.

My understanding is that Catholicism teaches that God owns both the universe as a whole and the earth as a planet. This all goes deeper into the philosophical views of property rights that Catholicism holds. Something I'm not well read on nor have been educated much on.

But my vague understanding is that pertaining to property rights, given that God owns the earth, that aspects of the earth deemed commonly shared by man must be accessible to all even if in a legal sense one man holds a claim to said land or resources.

I'll do a google search on this to correct or better clarify what I'm asserting about Catholic teaching.

But irrespective of the religious dynamic scholars--secular scholars--have pinned the root cause of the massive scale assault on the enviroment on the economic systems of capitalism and communism.

I see no disagreement with this among scientists as they like to talk about ecological footprints. The less poor people the more stress on the environment. They claim--though I do not believe them--that the earth can not sustain all nations of the earth consuming at the equal rates of Americans.

But I'm asking--no I'm saying--that if capitalism was so good then why aren't the mega rich in Rio de Janeio forking up the billions (they could pool the money together) to improve the water infrastructure and local aesthetics related to that around them in Rio?

Your accusations against religion or civilization has nothing to do with that.

 

[SuperCloud]

Here is one article.

Full article: Private property and Catholic teaching | Legatus Magazine

Private property and Catholic teaching

June 1, 2011
Filed under Ethics

Leave a Comment


Dr. Andrew V. Abela writes that the Catholic Church has always defended citizens’ right to private property. In fact, the Church teaches that the right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether . . .

With the current debate about increasing taxes, it’s worth taking a step back to look at what the Church says about private property. Is private property legitimate? Are there any limits to ownership? Are there limits to taxation?


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind,” so the goods of creation are for the benefit of all. The Church teaches that this is to be achieved through private property, which “is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs” (#2402). This emphasis on private property as necessary for human freedom comes from the Second Vatican Council: “Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom” (Gaudium et Spes, 71; emphasis added).


The Church recognizes that if you are politically free but have no wealth or savings, then you are not really free at all. If you are dependent for your housing, your health care, your next meal, on government or your employer, then really, how free are you? This is why the right to private property “has always been defended by the Church up to our own day,” as Blessed John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus (#30).


But he went on to say that “the possession of material goods is not an absolute right.” Why not? Because, since the goods of creation are for the good of all, the reason we own private property is to serve others with it, and therefore our right to property doesn’t extend to hoarding or wasting it. So, “‘man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all,’ because ‘above the laws and judgments of men stands the law, the judgment of Christ. God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone.’” This is referred to as the “universal destination of created goods” (Centesimus Annus, 30-31; citing Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 22; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, II-II, q. 66).

The state has a role in contributing to the universal destination of goods where human generosity has not sufficiently risen to the task. John Paul II wrote that the state must contribute to the achievement of unemployment support, adequate wage levels and humane working conditions, “both directly and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favorable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity. Directly and according to the principle of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker” (Centesimus Annus, 15).

 

[SuperCloud]

And here: Catholic doctrine on property rights may surprise you :: Diocese of Bismarck (Bismarck, ND)

Although, I can't find anything (at least yet) claiming or teaching God owns the earth. So, maybe I'm wrong on that. I could have sworn I read that somewhere a while back, while reading some Catholic essay or something.

The Church has long defended the right to private property. It might surprise many in our country that the Church views this right very differently from the typical American. Americans tend to view property ownership as a mostly absolute dominion over a thing; a power to do what one wishes with the property and to prevent others from interfering with that power.

 

[SuperCloud]

And lastly this: Now and Tomorrow: The Universal Destination of Goods - Catholic Culture

The idea of the common good arises from the fact that God created the world and everything in it so that He might give man dominion over it. Wary of the modern overtones of the word dominion, some prefer stewardship. In this context, the meaning is the same, for the steward exercises dominion until the Lord comes. In any case, that man should have such dominion is consistent with his creation in the image and likeness of God. God’s plan is that man should exercise dominion as a sort of cooperation with and extension of God’s own role of sustaining all things in being and bringing them to perfection. Through this cooperation with God, man gives glory to his Creator and, ultimately, achieves union with Him. Now clearly God intended for all men and women to share in this dominion, not just a few. He also intended that we should share in it morally, that is, according to his Divine will, which is always a manifestation of love.

Only at the end of a discussion of the common good do we finally arrive at government. For the common good is the reason—indeed, the sole legitimate reason—for the establishment of political authority. The purpose of government is to order our common life to more fully secure the common good.



The Universal Destination of Goods

One of the critical principles of the common good derives directly from the fact that all persons, not just a few, are intended to participate in man’s dominion over nature. This principle is called “the universal destination of goods”. All of creation is given not just to man, but to all men, so that each might exercise a creative and conserving dominion, completing and perfecting creation for God’s glory. This universal destination of goods implies a universal right to use the goods of the earth, a right of which no person may be completely or even largely deprived without grave injustice (except as necessary to prevent attacks on the common good itself).


Note that the universal destination of goods does not militate against personal ownership or private property. To the contrary, ownership is essential to free and full participation in the universal destination of goods. It is the ordinary means by which we exercise dominion, provide for ourselves and others, act as good stewards, creatively develop resources, and so participate more effectively in God’s plan. But at the same time, we can see that because the destination of goods is universal, ownership and private property are not absolute values in themselves. They have a larger social function, and the proper exercise of that larger function is essential to the common good.