Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42848)	7/1/1999 1:40:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Steve, I think you are arguing against a case that nobody made. 1) Trade/commerce is not the same thing as capitalism. 2) Whoever said that Protestantism "invented" capitalism? Of course, it would be "beyond ridiculous" if they had said it, but since they did not...? The only contentions that scholars have ever made in this regard were the following: 1) Protestantism developed an ethic that was "conducive" to the growth of capitalism, and/or 2) for a time, there was an "ideological blend" between the two of them. These interpretations have been offered tentatively, by scholars, as hypotheses, not as "rationalizations." 3) Of course, every successful culture has, at one time or another, argued that its success was due to divine favor. But if you think Max Weber argued that, you had better read his book again. Some tele-evangelists may be arguing it even today, but that is, as they say, quite another kettle of fish. 4) You tend to use the words "Christianity" and "Protestantism" interchangeably. If I recall correctly, Weber and Tawney both drew a sharp distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism, not only because the latter forbade usury, but also because Protestantism (most particularly of the Calvinist variety) encouraged certain character traits and beliefs that "fit" capitalism better than Catholicism did. I haven't read Sombart's book on the Jews & modern capitalism, but I would suspect that he too stressed certain features of the Old Testament outlook that the Protestants shared. (Catholics generally did not read the Old Testament.) Surely you remember Job? Job has all the good things in life, thanks to God's favor. So, on a bet with Satan, God takes all those good things away, leaving poor old Job to assume God has withdrawn his favor, and to wonder what it was that he did wrong. But when he passes this "test" of his faith in God, Job gets his goodies back. In other words, what we have here is a tie-in between religious faith and worldly success as the sign of it. Your questions about the Northern Europeans, etc., are perfectly reasonable. But why are you zapping a fellow free-thinker, nihil, with them? All he did was tell you that certain scholars have, indeed, suggested a connection between religion and the growth of capitalism, which you said nobody ever did. Joan

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42848)	7/1/1999 2:49:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 108807

I would suggest that western civilization based on the Bible have flourished economically because they understood the role of private property and the importance of law in protecting that property. Most churches accepted this principle. The Bible records how Abraham purchased a family burial site from Ephron. Its borders were then precisely recorded and it remained in the possession of Abraham's descendants. When the Jews entered the promised land, the land was divided and apportioned to individual families. No part of the holy land was retained by the government. Sactuaries were established that belonged to God, not to the king or the government. Kings were even punished when they seized property that belonged to citizens. Now lets look at the philosophy that drives the bureaucrats of the welfare state. And consider the drab developments of identical apartments that we call "public housing", but which greatly resemble homes in Moscow and other old atheistic states. Were low income Americans granted ownership of these apartments? Of course not. And not surprisingly the homes deteriorated quickly. Religious inspired people try and grant freedom and independence to all, through the church and faith-based projects that provide a means of acquiring food and housing, medical assistance, a job, and ultimately, property of their own. "Habitat for Humanity" is a perfect example of this. I struggle to remember one atheistic organization who's goals are aligned with private property? For some reason it seems to take a religious worldview to recognize the wisdom of private ownership of all property. Additionally, which segment of our society tries to slander those who have worked diligently for their success? Leading to a perception that the rich got that way by stealing from the poor. This perception includes the notion that wealth-producing activities are unseemly and that free-market economic activity causes, rather than cures, poverty. Just as it is wrong for a zookeeper to allow one chimpanzee to eat a lot more banannas than another, so it must be wrong for the government to allow one human to acquire significantly more than another. This view is consistent with the view that humans have no spiritual side, and we are simply another species of animal. So are government zookeepers try and repair the mistake by taxation and the pursuit of people deemed "too successful". Michael

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42848)	7/1/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Hard to discuss this line without a set of detailed definitions and concepts. This is traditionally the realm of economic historians and social historians, and in the earlier parts, archeologists and anthropologists. I am none of these, and it is very easy to become absurd -- particularly in the light of your original statement about the evidence of the disjointness of Xianity and capitalism. I suspect that small scale independent trading has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. But until very recently, this economic activity did not emerge into a cumulative process that absorbs and destroys the previous economic regimes. The keys to what Marx called capitalism was not only the freedom of trade (and trade has never anywhere been completely free), but also the role of private (individual as opposed to social) and corporate production and distribution, and the reinvestment of profits. Certainly the first few hundred thousand years of trade were not accompanied by the other parts. The early temple trade (Solomon and Hiram, for instance) and the even earlier Sumerian examples were not capitalism in any sense. State-dominated trade by the early city states (Athens, Carthage, Troy, etc.) obviously did not produce a system that one could call capitalism. The effect of capitalism on social structure has been dramatic. We are not yet in late-stage capitalism yet. In my opinion we are not yet in late stage capitalism. Imperialism has just collapsed. US military adventurism has almost no rational economic component (i.e. nearly always we lose money by intervening overseas). But international state-regulated trade is growing rapidly, foreign investment is becoming much more general. In 50 years, capitalism may dominate every country in the world. There does not even seem to be an alternative (even theoretical) system in competition. Certainly no one but some backward Islamic clerics push feudalism or religious imperialism. I think the last 250 years has been dramatically different from anything that ever existed before. The capitalistic ideology (the Physiocrats, Hume (the theoretical father of free trade), Smith, Ricardo, Say) is very young. It is now so complex and well-developed that it is intellectually undefeatable. (One would have to develop a complete new system of logic to overthrow modern economic theory in argument. Anyone who attempts to criticize it from a scientific basis is usually seduced by its rigorous beauty, predictive success, and power, or driven mad in the attempt. I am willing to predict that improvements in economic and social theory will have to take the form of adding a few more epicycles, rather than any fundamental changes -- i.e. I think economic theory is "true" like evolutionary theory is "true." No one ever understood economics before 1750.