Kruse Kronicle

“Do emergents hate freedom?” Virgil Vaduva

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Unfinished Christianity: Do emergents hate freedom? If you aren't familiar with Virgil, he is an immigrant to the US from Romania who grew up under the Soviet system. I always enjoy his passionate take on things.

If you’ve been around the emergent blogging scene for a while, you’ve probably seen it: a lot of talk about social justice, poverty, fair trade, living wages, etc. We all love talking about this important stuff, and since emergent folks tend to be a lot more praxis-oriented than previous generations, the topics come naturally. There is a problem though. Many folks use those words and topics without any agreed-upon definitions, or without knowing what they even mean. …

…….

I am becoming more and more convinced that many Christians (particularly those labeling themselves “emergent”) lack even the most basic understanding of simple economic principles, and basic economic theory, such as competitive labor cost, deadweight loss, supply and demand or exchange of goods and services. It is therefore no surprise that so many emergents are choosing the left-side of the political spectrum, …

…….

Historically speaking, one would be hard-pressed to point out an instance in which freedom failed to deliver; similarly I can point out to countless instances in which stifling freedom has had disastrous consequences; millions of people died as a result, and millions continue to suffer all over the world because thugs are creating a framework in which fair trade (my definition) and social justice (my definition) are denied by those thugs using the power to stifle freedom and natural development of economic relationships. I know this because I've lived it, I've experienced it, and I recognize the lingo when I hear it.

If emergent folks want to help the poor and want to make a tangible difference in the world, we need to subscribe to and promote social justice through freedom and sound economic principles rather than propagandist BS that has no basis in reality or common sense. I have no interest in becoming another wing of the Democratic Party…or Republican for that matter. I do however want to be part of a freedom-loving community of believers interested in genuinely helping the needy with acts of selfless dedication and sacrifice; my dedication and sacrifice.

Virgil sometimes has a more libertarian bent than I might on some issues, but I very much agree with his basic thrust about freedom. I think what he says about Emergents is often true about most mainline politicos. I think the default belief is that the state's coercive power primarily accomplishes justice, compelling people to behave justly rather than primarily by people behaving justly as an outgrowth of holding and acting on virtuous ideals and values.

Comments

23 responses to ““Do emergents hate freedom?” Virgil Vaduva”

  1. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    Honestly this is the kind of rhetoric and FUD that makes discussion harder not easier. Its like me asking if when conservatives oppose governments making generic HIV drugs that ignore patents, do conservatives hate the global south?

    Reply
  2. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    Honestly this is the kind of rhetoric and FUD that makes discussion harder not easier. Its like me asking if when conservatives oppose governments making generic HIV drugs that ignore patents, do conservatives hate the global south?
    Let me rephrase the question: is every economic transaction just? Does usury exist?

    Reply
  3. Peter Kirk Avatar
    Peter Kirk

    Virgil “can point out to countless instances in which stifling freedom has had disastrous consequences”. With a bit of effort I could point out to countless instances in which allowing economic freedom has had disastrous consequences. Maybe not in the millions of deaths category, but in the category of allowing the livelihoods of millions to be destroyed without a care when whole industries close down because they are not economic in the short term in a free market. The lesson is that there is no easy solution in either freedom or control. But Virgil’s rhetoric implicitly linking any kind of economic control with Stalinist type repression (“millions of people died”) is an extremely unhelpful caricature.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Nate, I am not sure I understand what FUD has to do with this. I would point to my last sentence and the operative word “primarily,” which is used twice.
    I resonate with Virgil’s frustration. The Emergent conversation is saturated with statist solutions to social problems, repeated demonstrations of ignorance about the most basic economic ideas, and endless droning about the falsehood that the poor are getting poorer. Yet when Virgil unloads with his frustration (as I occasionally do), we are the ones who are ideologues and being unhelpful to the conversation. That makes me less inclined to be “helpful” with the conversation. 🙂
    Peter, nowhere have I claimed that market systems achieve utopia and are free of abuse. Pointing to the very real shortcomings and pitfalls of participating in a market system (the localized effects of creative destruction being a very real one you mention) and then condemning it is because it does not achieve the eschatological hope of the end of the age is unfair an imprudent. No system will meet this criterion. The comparison is between the market system and other options in the context of fallen humanity.
    Economist Brad Delong estimates that world per capita income doubled from $90 to $180 between 12,000 BCE and 1750 CE. Between 1750 and 2000 the amount rose from $180 to $6,000. Meanwhile the population grew by more than six fold. The percentage of the world living on less than a dollar a day was 84% in 1820. It was 39% in 1970. It is between 15-20% today. Point to me to any other economy that has achieved these results?
    As a further note to all, I want to stress again the limits of economic freedom. When we talk about freedom of religion, to most it is understood that this freedom has limits. Same with the freedom of speech. However, when I support economic freedom, it is routinely thrown back at me that I am arguing for “unbridled capitalism.” That is a game of ideological misdirection I have little patience for. I speak of economic freedom as a good just as we speak of these other freedoms as goods.
    Economic freedom is every bit as much a positive good as other freedoms and should be nurtured and framed within an appropriate civic-mindedness. But some see religious freedom, speech freedom, and economic freedom as dangerous “privileges” granted by the state that most be rationed and managed carefully by the state. The default paradigm I hear in Emergent and mainline circles is an innate suspicion and animus toward economic freedom. (That is what I think Virgil hears and I concur.) And I find this particularly ironic and baffling in light of how most Emergent types view hierarchy and institutions within the religious environment, and their emphasis of achieving things through local community. It is a striking non sequitur to me.

    Reply
  5. Sam Carr Avatar
    Sam Carr

    Michael, i would agree with you on freedom and how precious it is. The freedom that the gospel gives us is the freedom to render, to give away. Now, turning that into an obligation is ridiculous.
    At the same time the gospel is (the way I see it) also quite against organisations of any sort for these cannot but usurp on the Lordship of Christ.
    Freedom, yes, individual freedom, again yes, but on the whole and very voluntarily and very deliberately the freedom is that of agglomeration as opposed to conglomeration. i think the distinction is important.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Sam, I’m not quite sure I get what you are saying. I think I hear a concern about the amassing of power and wealth in the hands of a few and I agree that is a problem. Again, I measuring against the alternatives versus utopia.
    I recently read a book that went into the survival and longevity of corporations. Most corporations who make it to the top tier are lucky to stay there more than a decade or two. A minority have fallen, reinvented themselves and then risen again. Very few have done this more than once. I believe that General Electric is the only corporation that was on the Dow Jones Industrial list 100 years ago that remains there today and it has fallen and reinvented itself several times. The same can be said for families with great wealth. It is tough to hang onto for more than a couple of generations.
    There are some natural dynamics in the market system that tend to lead toward a measure of conglomoration but then also to breaking up that conglomoration. While conglomoration is a problem I don’t see concentrating economic decision-making in the hands of those with the coercive power of the state as a better option and I think history bears that out.

    Reply
  7. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    Linking a raise in the minimum wage or buying free trade coffee beans to stalinism that perpetrated millions of deaths is making an argument based on fear. “See we could end up like that.” There is no reasoned evidence just fear and uncertainty. Combined with the general bias towards anything liberal and you deff make an argument via FUD.
    Do you really think that if the most liberal democrats were in charge for the next 15 years w/o any restraint they would do what Stalin gulags did? Do you think if Denis Kucinich was in power the US would be running Guantanamo? The reality is I can point to plenty of atrocities committed in Central and South America where right wing, capitalist dictators did all sorts of atrocities. Lets not play a who killed more game, ok?

    Reply
  8. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    I just now realized that Michael linked to my entry…thanks. I usually avoid writing from a negative perspective but Mike nailed it: there are issues that one just can’t help but be passionate about.
    Peter, what you are mentioning is what I call “the dark side of capitalism.” I see it every day when I come to work: no retirement plan, bad insurance plan, etc. It’s all done so the owners of the company (and I work for a private company) can make more money – it’s that simple. At the same time I also realize that I can leave at any time and find another job; freedom benefits me very much by not binding me to the situation I am in. I weigh positives and negatives and choose to stay; I also hope that through my own influence in the workplace I can motivate the management to understand that benefits can translate to higher revenues and profits. I can’t do that by passing laws – it has to be voluntary.
    Regarding lack of jobs because of lack of economic opportunities and monopolies, I sometimes wonder if those effects have not been exaggerated throughout history: i.e. millions starving and dying. It is true that the standards of living drop sharply once people fall in the unemployment hole, but let’s not make the mistake of comparing modern standards of living with 18th century economic history. The expense of the outhouse my great grandfather loved so much in Romania because he had carbide light in it does not translate into the expense I incurred for my huge bathroom with 2 vanities, separate shower and bathtub, so unemployment affects people differently, according to a certain social context.
    I do recognize that capitalism without compassion can create a cold, cold world. But if I may also ask, when did God ask us to forfeit our role in the society to be compassionate? And not be compassionate and generous with other people’s money, but be compassionate and generous with our own resources and servitude? After all, is that not much harder to do?

    Reply
  9. Peter Kirk Avatar
    Peter Kirk

    Michael, I accept that “nowhere have [you] claimed that market systems achieve utopia and are free of abuse”. But then nowhere have I been “condemning it is because it does not achieve the eschatological hope of the end of the age”, so please don’t put this in my mouth. We are agreed that neither the unbridled free market not state control are perfect systems, so let’s not pick an argument. The problem is that Virgil doesn’t seem to agree, from your limited quotes from him and from his own comment.
    But you do seem to give all the credit for the increase in wealth between 1750 and 2000 to the free market system. That is unfair. For large parts of that period in many parts of the world the market was very far from free. Britain’s leadership in this growth in the early days was based on strict monopolies. And in many countries in the 20th century very considerable growth was achieved in many communist and socialist economies, although by the end of the century their flaws had become apparent – as also had many flaws in the free market system. I say this not to argue that any other system is better than the free market, but simply to correct the exaggerations in your claims.
    Virgil, I accept that there are difficult political decisions to be made about how and when governments should legislate morality, whether it be on compassion for the poor or on abortion. (It is strange how those Christians who don’t believe governments should act on poverty insist that they must act on abortion.) There is little in the New Testament to go on in terms of advice for governments. But there is advice in the Old Testament for kings, who were of course the governments of the time. I note for example the advice given to King Lemuel in Proverbs 31:9: “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (TNIV). That is not the government keeping out of the free market.

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Nate, there are gradations of statism from anarchy (none) to totalitarianism (total). No, I don’t believe liberal Democrats would lead to the extremes you states but I do believe that confiscatory tax schemes, nationalized health care (1/7 to 1/6 of the economy), and a few other things could severely stifle economic growth and rising prosperity around the world.
    You and I have been through this before. Your use of the word “capitalism” seems to me like a Rorschach inkblot test onto which we throw everything we don’t like. I see capitalism as an economic system of relatively free (unregulated) exchange of goods and services among individuals and firms who accumulate and invest, and reinvest, their earnings with an eye towards long-term returns. It is embedded within a legal system that respects property rights and transparency. “Capitalist dictator” is for me an oxymoron (though there are clearly capitalists who have routinely exploited people through Latin American dictators, all the time claiming “free enterprise” with a wink and a nod.) If the broad populace is not engaged in relatively free and open trade where respect for their property is institutionalized, it isn’t capitalism. How on earth do we get from what I have said about enshrined economic freedom to support of fascist Latin American regimes? These regimes are anything but capitalist or free.
    Peter, you wrote:
    “But you do seem to give all the credit for the increase in wealth between 1750 and 2000 to the free market system. That is unfair. For large parts of that period in many parts of the world the market was very far from free.”
    I not saying that all that all increase in wealth came from the free market system. I am saying that is was the catalyst working its way through the world economic body. The growing idea of free trade began to flow through the planet’s economic body like an antibody that is bringing greater health and well being to humanity. I think we can only talk in terms of relative degree of freedom. I am in complete agreement with you that British economic forces 300 years ago were very far from free trade but they were becoming more free than anything that had come before. But seemingly in spite of itself, Britain set in motion chains of events that led to a growing awareness and wakening to the importance of free trade. It has been, and still is, an evolving process. I don’t think my claims are exaggerated, but may not be sufficiently qualified.
    What I am aiming for is not a justification of any present world order or of capitalism per see. I am saying I think we grossly underestimate the positive impact that ideas of economic freedom have had (and are having) on rising and broadening world prosperity. I’m seeing an emerging (and very imperfect) trajectory that is moving us from rampant subsistence living to ever greater portions (now well above the majority) of the planet living beyond subsistence.

    Reply
  11. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    And BTW, Hi Virgil! 🙂

    Reply
  12. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    Michael,
    maybe I “run” with a different emerging church crowd than you do. Most of the emergers I hear from are in fact thinking much more about what they themselves can actually do to “behav(e) justly as an outgrowth of holding and acting on virtuous ideals and values”, than trying to impose statist solutions. I agree that economic ignorance is widespread, including among emergers. And having visited Romania during my student days when it was still under Communism, I understand -to some minimal degree at least- why Virgil holds the opinions he holds. Generalizations are not always bad- but I think you’re missing something because of your own bias- also not a bad thing. I know you have experience discussing these things with emergers, and that’s why I say maybe you’re not hearing the diversity of emergers’ opinions.
    I think the reactions of emergers in this area stem from of two things: 1) the pendulum swing of moving away from conservative evangelicalism (for many reasons), and because of that movement, not wanting to be automatically associated with “conservative politics”, and not knowing where else to turn but to “liberal politics”; 2) the perceived connection between capitalism and this “unholy” thing: {unethical behavior/greed/narrow focus on getting as much monetary profit as possible, to the exclusion of, and taking advantage of, people without economic resources}. This connection is what they’re suspicious of, not “economic freedom”.
    Does that make sense?
    You have done more than anyone else I’ve known or read to educate me about capitalism being a “neutral entity” which, because of its nature, will generate either a positive “outcome” or a negative one, depending on the ethic one invests 🙂 into it. You have “uncoupled it” from that “unholy thing” I tried to describe in the brackets above. I think that approach is what is needed with any emerger who will listen, and again, most of the ones I’m hearing to are likely candidates for listening- *especially* if you express real compassion toward, for example, people who are employed but for whatever reasons are simply not able to make ends meet, or those who only know how to function in a “poverty mentality”. (Have you ever looked around this site? http://www.ahaprocess.com) The emergers I describe in #1 above need to be shown another alternative. Providing this education and outlining those alternatives will require a lot of work and patience, because of both the economic ignorance and the perception of capitalism as that “unholy thing” because of how it has been tainted by unethical and greedy people.
    I’m sorry it’s so frustrating for you. And I can’t see how it’s helpful in your passion about this subject to use expressions like “saturated with statist solutions”. It is the way you have used gracious- and sometimes strong, yes!- language while explaining your POV and upholding the principles of your conscience WRT women in ministry, and your real care for those with whom you converse, that has garnered you both the willingness to be heard by many of those who don’t agree and the richly deserved gratitude that has been expressed to you by so many at Jesus Creed. Some people just aren’t ready to hear. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think you would get a wider hearing on the economic subject if you approached it the same way as you have approached the women in ministry subject.
    Thanks for listening-
    Dana

    Reply
  13. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks Dana for a very gracious response. I’ll try to take your admonitions to heart.
    I do confess I’m deeply passionate about this issue. I think part of it is personal. There is much that I value in the emerging church movement but the persistent antipathy toward economic freedom is a major issue that keeps me at the movement’s edge. I would like to be more supportive but after two decades of challenging this mindset in my mainline denomination, it is a raw nerve for me. I’m impatient. In fact, I’m beginning to morph into Howard Beale, throwing open the sash and yelling “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore.”
    So maybe in the future I’ll just go to the window, throw it open, try to channel Joan Rivers, and shout “Can we talk?” Or maybe I’ll just write a book … oh wait…
    *grin*

    Reply
  14. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    *chuckle*
    yup- maybe I’ll join you in yelling out the window- I’m familiar with that feeling of wanting to bang my head against a wall, oh yes…
    In the meantime, some gracious deconstruction 🙂
    you’re very kind-
    D.

    Reply
  15. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    We have had some interesting discussions before and I at least have profited from them. I agree that the call of Christians is to make choices that bring healing and wholeness to the world. That free markets are an effective format for transmitting those moral choices into reality. And that Christians should be very wary of compelling others to act. We can talk about medical choices at length, if you want to, as a person who is employed full time and does not have any medical insurance, my take might be slightly different then yours. But that is for another thread.
    You objected harshly to my comment about linking dictators who encouraged capital rights and had the support of Large Business men (called Capitalist, because they controlled/were interested in the movement of capital …. see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalist definitions two and three.). with awful atrocities but don’t understand why I would object just as strongly at linking many Emergent Types with Stalin? It would strike me that Pinochet in Chile was a capitalist by the second and third definitions I cited. Is that really unfair? Is it more unfair then calling Stalin a Marxist? Are you sure?
    Can you invent a third word for me, one we can use in our dialog. Some word to convey government that have most property rights, that honor most laws, that see goods exchanged and deals made, but that are not really free … I.E. the majority of the governments today. As long as the only thing capitalism can mean, in your formulation is an abstract idea that no one can point to a single real world example of, then what is the point defending it. I would even be willing to stipulate that capitalism idealized and described by you might be just. But who cares … if it is not the world we are living in, it does not matter. So care to craft a new word … one that can refer to the reality I see, good and bad?
    Nate

    Reply
  16. Sam Carr Avatar
    Sam Carr

    Sorry for the delay in clarifying my vague comment. i was not specifically aiming at corporations though they are the most visible practitioners of conglomerate behavior.
    We are a bunch of very diverse individuals who have been saved by God and then find ourselves in ‘the body’. We then get together for all the right reasons, primarily that we agree that “Jesus is Lord”, but then the fallen human tendency takes over, organise, conglomerate… and of course this leads to all sorts of trouble including that our organisations increasingly become more important to us than what we got together for in the first place.
    One of the exciting things about Emerging has been the move away from older patterns of organisation but it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing increasing ‘organisation’ and its attendent tendency to dethrone our Lord in favor of our organisation.
    Sweeping generalisations, but they also have an impact on politics. Virgil would prefer a libertarian approach and in many ways he is right but what’s more important than left or right is that individual Christians understand the imperatives of His kingdom and act appropriately.
    In the kingdom, nothing should be allowed to ever supplant the King.

    Reply
  17. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Nate, you wrote:
    “As long as the only thing capitalism can mean, in your formulation is an abstract idea that no one can point to a single real world example of, then what is the point defending it.”
    By this criteria we shall have to abandoned the word Christian for is there anyone who truly follows Jesus flawlessly? *grin*
    I realize that semantics, personal context, and connotation (as opposed to denotation) hamstring the discussion. So let me clarify on several things.
    First, in the most generic sense, capitalism is an economic system that emphasizes capital as a means of production (compared to land and labor, the three classic “means of production,” although some would say that knowledge has emerged as a fourth.) In this sense, the USA, the former Soviet Union, and Pinochet’s Chile are (or were) capitalist nations. Capitalism, in this most narrow sense of the word, can be married to any number of political ideologies but the idea of amassing and employing capital productively is largely an amoral concept.
    This takes us to the question of who owns or controls the capital. In the Soviet Union and the Eastern block, capital was owned by the state. In Pincohet’s Chile, capital was controlled by a few through authoritarian tyranny and state terrorism. These are extreme versions of statism. Within the USA and some other democracies, capital is owned by private individuals participating in a relatively free market where certain rules about transparency, property rights/limitations, ethical trade practices, etc. hold sway.
    You asked if I can invent a word. If we legitimately use the language of the discipline of political economy, then there is no need to invent. What I am referring to is “market capitalism.” It exists in purity nowhere but in relative terms it is redefining the world everywhere. Yet the minute I use the phrase “market capitalism,” I’m instantaneously condemned as supporting “unbridled exploitation,” which is patently absurd. We are talking about political economy. I am using the language of the discipline of political economy. Just as I am someone who is not a professional theologian but has worked to grasp the language and concepts central to theological discourse why shouldn’t I expect Emergent, mainline, and theological academia in general to put forth the effort to grasp the basic language and concepts of political economy when discussing political economy?
    Second, I have not personally made any comparisons to Stalinism. I have used the word statism. State power is a good and necessary thing for the shalom of society. It provides safe boundaries within which people can leave and interact and it provides protection against malevolent forces in the world. I use the word statism as a predilection to look to the state as the primary and default method of achieving just ends (however those ends are defined) instead of looking to other institutions of society (i.e., family, community, voluntary associations, religious institutions, etc.) to achieve the same ends. Stalin and Penochet would be extreme examples. There are vast gradations of statism that are far short of totalitarianism.
    Virgil spent his whole childhood growing up in such an extreme environment and that is why I think it is important to appreciate personal biographies in this discussion. The reality is, the Virgils of the world may be overreacting based on their personal experience but it may just be that the Virgils of the world have been less anesthetized to creeping dangers than we might be.
    “Market capitalism” captures very well what I mean. Yet it is contorted, twisted and misrepresented as “code words” for unbridled exploitation while being conflated with other ideologies like imperialism. I don’t see how coming up with new language will matter as long as people have the perspective that economic freedom is a necessary evil to be rationed instead of a positive good to be nurtured. Whatever language I use will be twisted in the same way.

    Reply
  18. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Amen Sam! Tom Skinner would tell a story about a guy who felt he should take a sandwich to a homeless guy he passed everyday. Soon he began to take food to a community of homeless folks. Then some friends suggested he could get a van to deliver the food to more people. That required raising money. Effectively raising money required procuring a 501-C3 status. It also required development of a donor database and the purchase of a computer to manage the database. Then an office was needed to house the computer and the worker who managed the database. All these assets required the formation of a board to oversee the use of the assets. Finally, one day when the money got tight, a fundraising letter was sent out to solicit funds because otherwise the “ministry” might have to close. In fact, what was meant was they might have to cancel the lease on the office, sell the computer, and fire the employee unless they got more money. No one was being prevented from taking food to homeless people. Just the organizational monster would die.
    Skinner referred to this as the ministry versus the monster. Lack of organization often leads to less effective ministry. But organizing ministry can quickly create a consuming monster. I think the story of God’s people is rooted in this endless struggle.

    Reply
  19. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    Thanks for your wise comments. It seems to me that Market Capitalism/Economic Freedom functions for you the same way Democracy to Come functions for Derrida. Capitalism is an idea, a rumor, a whisper, a shade that constantly critiques the current broken half implementations and seeks to call us forward into an eschatalogical future. I hope I have not condemned you for seeking unbridled exploitation, but if this is how you use the word, let me rescind my comments.
    If this is how you understand Market Capitalism wouldn’t you be glad to see people critqing it? Naming places where things are not open, where knowledge (or labor) cannot move freely (frictionlessly?), where there is exploitation. How can I signal to you that I am not seeking to critique Market Capitalism, simply our own broken and twisted implementation of it.
    If I freely chose to invest my money w/Kiva instead of in a mutual fund because I believe that more empowered people == less terrorist attacks.
    In the interest of that honest critique of the current setup, your Pinochet / Bush thing gets interesting when you compare the numbers. If I asked you to make a graph, capital owners in a ranking top 1,000 richest etc … with the percentage of total capital owned by each chunk underneath the curve, would you be able to tell the difference between the USA of today and Pinochet’s Chile? Especially if the scale going up was linear not logarithmic? May I legitimately ask that question without hating freedom?
    How about this one, our founding fathers used state control to ensure that decisions were made by the wealthy, landed few, instead of by everyone who lived in America. Since then the right to participate in the political process has slowly expanded. Make another chart. X-Axis is people categorized by total net worth, in chunks top %5 etc. Then on the Y-Axis look at the percent of total votes in all systems represented. How would that transform over the US’s history? Make a similar chart, X-Axis is the same, Y-Axis is percentage of total national net worth owned. Do you see the same change or no? The Democracy to come has made some progress, has the market capitalism to come?

    Reply
  20. nate Avatar
    nate

    P.S. the discussion of the Virgils of the world as “Canaries in the Coal Mines” vrs “Boys who Cried Wolf” is one for another time.
    Both images might have some truth in them …

    Reply
  21. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Nate
    “Capitalism is an idea, a rumor, a whisper, a shade that constantly critiques the current broken half implementations and seeks to call us forward into an eschatalogical future.”
    I like that!
    By all means critique away but let us also acknowledge what has not worked in the past and learn from it. The default solution to the short comings of a market economy in a fallen world is very often state intervention. It more often (not always) creates more problems than it solves.
    I haven’t ever looked at graph of Chile but I suspect it would have looked similar to most other Latin American countries. The US chart would look somewhat like a bell curve with a tail extending out to the right (higher incomes). Chile would have a spike in its curve with at the lowest incomes and a LONG narrow tail out to the right. In absolute terms I suspect you would find that the standard of living for working class Americans was higher than for the great majority of Chileans.
    The really seem to be two types of economic distribution in the world. One is typical of the developing world. There is an income equality of poverty. The vast majority are grouped together at a low income level with a tiny minority that have wealth. There is very little or social mobility from one income level to the next (That has been the norm throughout history.) The other option is a distribution that is spread out much more like a bell curve over a more expansive range of incomes. The distance between the two income extremes are much greater than the first example but most of society is concentrated toward the middle range of that distribution. But two other factors have to be noted. One is that the absolute living standards of the poor are higher than for the poor in the first example and there is a very significant increase in mobility up and down the economic ladder.
    So far, I do not think we have come across and income distribution that is an alternative to these two. I think the second is by far the most desirable.
    At the founding of the US, we adopted the principal of landownership as a basis for political power based on the English model. However, unlike in England, 85% of men owned land that set in motion the evolvement toward to democracy. I think market capitalism has made remarkable strides. We shook of the fallacy of mercantilism. We eliminated slavery as an ethical means of production. We created a system of property rights that happened so organically that we are hard pressed now to understand how it developed and pass it on to other societies. We have seen a decades long trend away from protectionism and tariffs but there is a long road to travel. I’m guessing that maybe we have learned that military invasion to topple dictators in the hopes that democratic capitalism will emerge is not a very effective strategy. *grin*

    Reply
  22. nate Avatar
    nate

    Mike,
    Just a quick comment your concept that 85% of men during the founding of the US owned land. That is just not accurate, does that include black slave men? Native American men? White indentured servants? Etc? If we included all of those populations I suspect your percentage would look a lot less positive.
    Can we stop using misleading statistics like that. Our nation was founded a long way from anything that can be called Democracy.

    Reply
  23. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Nate, what I wasn’t entirely clear here. My point was about the decades immediately following 1620 coming forward. Through much of the 17th Century, 85% of Europeans owned land in places like Plymouth Colony and Mass. Bay Colony. That set in motion understandings and practices that were heretofore not seen in European societies. Slaves in large numbers came later and indentured servitude for whites was a temporary status from which you emerged to become a land owner and citizen. Native Americans were separate societies, many without the concept of land ownership.
    Carl Degler’s Classic “Out of Our Past” documents this transition. My point is that the seeds were planted as far back as the early 1600s. They were sprouting by the time of the revolution in the 1770s when democracy among white men was engrained. It came to full bloom 150 years later when (at least on paper) adult men and women of all ethnicities had the right to vote.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading