Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Globalization: Good or Bad?


    It is always interesting to think back in time and see how much the world has changed over the years. The world of our youth (speaking for those of us who are of a certain generation) was very different from the world today. The Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is gone, and Chairman Mao is in his grave.
    But along with this changes have occurred profound alterations in the global economy as well. Trade barriers have fallen. Once underdeveloped countries have industrialized, and a global economy has emerged.

   In this connection we are reminded of an interesting debate that took place thirty years ago over economics and our moral obligations to the poor. Back in 1977 Christian author Ronald J. Sider published a book entitles Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study. He furnished an array of statistics to demonstrate what was perfectly obvious at the time, viz., that there was a vast disparity of wealth between the industrialized countries of the western world and the underdeveloped "Third World." He then examined the biblical teachings on wealth and poverty, including Old Testament poor laws and the practice of the 1st Century church. He went on to suggest that the wealthy nations were exploiting the poor ones. Trade barriers, he pointed out, were weighted in favor of the wealthy countries.
    The key question, then, is what to do about all of this. Sider had several suggestions: simple living, increased giving, and efforts to change national policy.
    Sider's book drew forth a vigorous response from David Chilton, a Christian Reconstructionist who once worked closely with Gary North. In 1981 Chilton published a volume entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators. It even had a cover that looked similar to Sider's book. A second edition appeared in 1982 along with a preface from North himself, and the book was dedicated to none other than Pat Robertson, "a 'productive Christian' who is leading God's people to victory."

    Chilton was a very strong advocate of free-market economics and was firmly opposed to almost any form of government interference. What especially drew his ire about Sider's book was its tacit support for government planning and attempts to redistribute wealth. Chiltondid not deny that poverty and hunger were real problems, but strongly disagreed with Sider about the causes. Whereas Sider tended to capitalism for the maldistribution of resources, Chilton cited corruption, government planning, and underlying cultural factors as the causes. His solution: evangelism, Christian schools in poor neighborhoods, and political action aimed at abolishing government interference in the economy.
    Both authors appealed to biblical precepts in support of their ideas, and both called for political pressure to change national policy. On the whole we would have to say that Sider's theology was better than his economics, while the opposite is true for Chilton. But it can be argued that they both shared one common flaw: they were both trying to apply biblical principles to society at large. It is doubtful that the great mass of humanity can ever be persuaded to live by biblical standards, although in Chilton's favor it should be pointed that he was a Postmillennialist – he was convinced that society would get progressively better before Christ returns.
    Both men thought that trade barriers were a major cause of Third World poverty. But while Sider wanted to tip the scales in favor of the developing countries, Chilton wanted to eliminate trade barriers altogether.
    Today we can report that their prayers have been answered, perhaps beyond their wildest imaginations. Trade barriers have come down; countries like India and even China have abandoned socialism and adopted free-market economies. The new global economy has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty. But it has been a mixed blessing: millions of Americans have seen their jobs get shipped overseas.
    In his book The Audacity of Hope, President Obama tells of a trip he made to Galesburg, IL during his 2004 run for the U.S. Senate. The town had seen several manufacturing plants close their doors. The president of the local machinists' union described the hardships endured by the laid off workers. After winning the election, during a Senate debate over CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement), Mr. Obama asked former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin whether there was any basis for the fears expressed by the workers in Galesburg. Rubin was cautiously optimistic, but noted that "with the pace of technological change, the size of the countries we're competing against, and the cost differentials with those countries, we see a different dynamic emerge." As Mr. Obama pointed out in reply, "the folks in Galesburg might not find that answer reassuring" (The Audacity of Hope, p. 175).
    It is sometimes said that capitalism is a process of "creative destruction." But in this instance we fear that what is being destroyed is the traditional American way of life, and that what is being created is a New World Order controlled by a small number of super-rich plutocrats.
    Is there a better way?

14 comments:

  1. Both authors appealed to biblical precepts in support of their ideas...

    Context. No True Christian. etc.
    Easy fix.

    But it can be argued that they both shared one common flaw: they were both trying to apply biblical principles to society at large. It is doubtful that the great mass of humanity can ever be persuaded to live by biblical standards...

    Then I guess we all know exactly where the great mass of humanity is going to end up. If only they understood the bible perfectly.
    Hmm.

    But in this instance we fear that what is being destroyed is the traditional American way of life, and that what is being created is a New World Order controlled by a small number of super-rich plutocrats. Is there a better way?

    Oh Bob.
    You just dumped a clanger again.
    Allow me to demonstrate...
    Imagine you are a German. A middle class German.
    Educated, from a good Catholic/Protestant family etc and the economy has just tanked. You have lost your family home and your middle class job and every pfenning you ever earned.
    You are angry. Very angry. You feel betrayed.
    Your whole country is in the toilet.
    Communists are making political hay.
    Now let's read your statement again, only this time let's tweek the labels a bit and send it back 80 years. Ready?

    "But in this instance we fear that what is being destroyed is the traditional German way of life, and that what is being created is a New World Order controlled by a small number of super-rich Jewish plutocrats.
    Is there a better way?"

    Not good, Bob. Not good at all.
    "New World Order"?
    "Small number of super rich plutocrats"?

    (nudge, nudge, wink wink)

    Go ahead, Bob. Mention "Bilderberg". Whisper the name "Soros" in deserted corridors.

    Once you go down the path of conspiracy mongering, there's no turning back. It's not your conclusions that are important. It's your methodology.
    The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah! Funny that you should mention "Bilderberg" and "Soros"! When I wrote this piece I was originally thinking about doing a review of a book I read recently -- "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else,"by Chrystia Freeland (New York: Penguin Press, 2012). If anything, Ms. Freeland leans to the left on the political spectrum, and the book is a description of the top 0.1% -- many of whom she describes as "rent-seekers." The book is loaded with statistics, and is kind of gossipy. She mentions Soros several times, including a description of a luncheon he hosted at this Southampton, Long Island estate, in 2007. His guests were discussing the state of the world economy, and most of them were upbeat, except for Soros himself. "George was formulating the idea that the world was coming to an end," she quotes one of his guests as saying (p. 142). She even mentions Bilderberg (once, on p. 68).
    I think that to call it a "conspiracy" is a bit of a stretch, but there is no question that a very tiny percentage of individuals wield a disproportionate amount of power and influence, and it not just extremists on the Right who are concerned about it.
    And you are right. The Lutheran churches in Germany in the '30's supported Hitler for just the reasons you mentioned. They should have paid more attention to what the Bible actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that to call it a "conspiracy" is a bit of a stretch...

    Perhaps another label switch might help you see the problem.

    "I think that to call it a "conspiracy" is a bit of a stretch, but there is no question that a very tiny percentage of Jews wield a disproportionate amount of power and influence, and it not just extremists on the Right who are concerned about it."

    Can you see how that slides nicely into a discussion on the Protocols?
    Not good, Bob. Not good at all.

    New World Order

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fact of the matter is that most of the people Freeland describes in her book are not Jewish, although she does mention that "of the seven men who between them controlled half of the Russian economy in 1998, and who became know as the oligarchs, six were Jewish . . ." ( 151)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The fact of the matter is that most of the people Freeland describes in her book are not Jewish...

    I don't think you have grasped the problem of the line of argument that you have attached yourself to. It not about "the Jews" per se. It's your methodology.
    I'm just switching the labels to illustrate the conspiracy mongering.
    It should disturb you that I don't have to change anything else.
    It should disturb you about the various groups of crackpots that say all sorts of nonsense about NWO.
    Put some clear distance between them and you.
    Don't subscribe to their level of "thinking". If you use their logic, then you are tacitly condoning it and lending it credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (Hmm, just noticed that my link in the second-to-last comment didn't work for some reason. I'll try again.)

    I think that to call it a "conspiracy" is a bit of a stretch...

    New World Order

    ReplyDelete
  7. My methodology was to read Freeland's book, and she is hardly a crackpot. She is a native of Canada, is currently the digital editor at Thomson Reuters, and was previously a journalist for The Financial Times (New York and London) and The Globe and Mail (Canada). Her book "Plutocrats" was published by The Penguin Press, a mainstream publishing house in New York. One of her chapters is entitled "Rent-Seeking," which is the one of the criticisms that people on the Left often level at capitalsim.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My methodology was to read Freeland's book, and she is hardly a crackpot. She is a native of Canada,...

    No, that's not your methodology.
    I'll give you a hint.
    Remember the hypothetical German? Well, he never read her book yet he has your same methodology.
    The label switching, remember?

    Did you read the link titled "New World Order", at all?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why not use your preferred methodology and Googe "Chrystia Freeland"? Then tell me if she's a crackpot. Or are you telling me that no amount of evidence will convince you that a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why not use your preferred methodology and Googe "Chrystia Freeland"?

    Did you miss the point that I made about the German? That German has never read Freeland. Yet his methodology is the same as yours. Freeland is neither here nor there. Do you understand what I mean when I talk about methodology and how that's not the same as source material?

    "Or are you telling me that no amount of evidence will convince you that a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority?"

    Now you are trying to build a strawman. Stop it. Focus on what I am saying and not what you wish I was saying. Do me the courtesy of not scrabbling around and putting words in my mouth. I don't do it to you and you should not do it to me.

    Or are you telling me that no amount of evidence will convince you that a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority?

    This is not your original claim. You have just moved the goal posts. You shouldn't do that. It's dishonest. Also, since your original claim is still there in plain English I can just scroll back up and cut-and-paste it. Shall we? We shall.

    But in this instance we fear that what is being destroyed is the traditional American way of life, and that what is being created is a New World Order controlled by a small number of super-rich plutocrats. Is there a better way?

    So...there is is. Ugly stuff. How ugly? Well, let's switch those labels around.

    "But in this instance we fear that what is being destroyed is the traditional German way of life, and that what is being created is a New World Order controlled by a small number of super-rich Jews. Is there a better way?"

    Now let's continue that line of thinking with more label switching to make it look really ugly.

    Or are you telling me that no amount of evidence will convince you that a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of Jews, destroying our traditional German way of life and that what is being created is a New World Order?

    See? What strikes you as being profoundly wrong with this statement? Lots of stuff, yeah? I should hope so. You need to have a good, hard look at your methodology and take a big step back from the abyss.




    ReplyDelete
  11. It sounds like guilt by association to me. Freeland wrote a book loaded with statistics, and you dismiss it all because that German guy had ideas that bore a superficial resemblance.
    Globalization will have the effect of challenging traditional ways of life, German and otherwise. Whether or not the super-rich are Jews is irrelevant (most of them, in fact, are not). The fact remains that we rapidly becoming a global plutocracy, and it's not just critics on the right who are making that point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It sounds like guilt by association to me."

    Only I'm not associating anybody with anyone else.

    Freeland wrote a book loaded with statistics...

    Freeland is not the topic of conversation. Please focus on what I am telling you. Freeland is irrelevent. I've never brought her up. I don't care about her nor her book nor her statistics.
    Are we clear on that now?

    "...you dismiss it all because that German guy had ideas that bore a superficial resemblance."

    They're identical. Word for word they are identical. I didn't change anything except the labels. Everything else is intact.

    Globalization will have the effect of challenging traditional..

    That's not what you said. Why are you pretending to say something different? Your own words are still on this very thread. They have not disappeared? Do you really think I don't remember them?

    Whether or not the super-rich are Jews is...

    (sigh)
    We've already covered this. I don't think you have grasped the problem of the line of argument that you have attached yourself to. It not about "the Jews" per se. It's your methodology.

    Or are you telling me that no amount of evidence will convince you that a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of Jews, destroying our traditional German way of life and that what is being created is a New World Order?

    What strikes you as being profoundly wrong with this statement?
    You don't like it, right?
    Ok, so take the part of Devil's Advocate.
    What's wrong with it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't like linking to newspaper articles. I don't find them reliable sources of information. However, this is a good intro into one example of conspiracy thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I did read the article and thought it was very sad. Interestingly Charlie Veitch's background sounds similar to of several who were involved in mass shootings -- loners who were bullied in school and came to resent successful people.
    I think it is easy for people who see evidence of social decline to want to blame outsiders for society's ills -- It's communists or Jews or the guy in the White House with a fake birth certificate and who is secretly a Muslim. Sometimes in Christian circles (especially Pentecostal ones) to blame literal demons for our personal failings. But unfortunately the problem is often with ourselves!

    ReplyDelete