Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Economics at the Jesus Creed: Michael Kruse 9

posted by Scot McKnight

WallStreet.jpg

Eighteen years ago, Pope John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus:

 

“Can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path of true economic and civil progress?

 

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property, and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.” (Centesimus Annus, 42)

 

This quote highlights a frequent difficulty in discussing economic systems: What is capitalism?

What do you think about how I’ve described capitalism? What is missing from the discussion? How do you respond to the quote by John Paul II?


 

At a
rudimentary level, Peter Berger’s definition works as well as any: “Production for a market by enterprising
individuals or combines with the purpose of making a profit
.” (The Capitalist Revolution, 19) I think most
economists would agree that capitalism includes at least the following:

 

Specialization of Labor – Specialization
is heightened.  Labor is oriented
toward earning wages as contributors toward the creation of products versus laborers
individually creating products for sale.

 

Market Exchange – Exchange has long been
with us but it pervades capitalism. People once produced most of what they
consumed and traded as a supplement. Now we acquire what we consume and supplement
it with production our own goods. Prices for goods are set by supply and
demand.

 

Private Property – The means of
production are privately owned and managed by private individuals and firms
based on long-term risk and reward.

 

Emphasis on Capital – Historically, land
and labor were the primary means of production. Capital is the dominant means
in capitalism. Capital is wealth placed in productive service. A firm’s
physical plant and equipment are typical examples but it can take other forms
as well.

 

The emergence
of capital as a major factor began at least by Fifteenth Century in Europe with
ocean bound trade expeditions. These undertakings were risky and expensive. The
Dutch and the English developed forerunners of modern corporations allowing
people to pool money and share risk. The big transition came with the advent of
steam and combustion engines in the late Eighteenth Century. These new power
sources enabled construction of unprecedentedly large manufacturing facilities
requiring, by historical standards, astronomically large amounts of private wealth
to be placed in productive service. The construction of the Erie Canal, begun
in 1817, was probably one of the first private ventures in the United States
requiring significant capital, but railroads and manufacturing quickly followed
suit.

 

No economy
exists in a vacuum relative to other cultural values. While the American
economic system is clearly capitalist, it is a mistake to equate capitalism
with the American economy. Other cultures have adopted capitalist models but
have differing concepts of justice. That influences how they evaluate the
efficacy of capitalism and what adjustments should be made to the economic
rules of the game.

 

Critics of
capitalism often speak of the dangers of “unbridled” capitalism. While it is
possible to have insufficient regulation it is not possible to have unbridled
capitalism. That would be anarchy. At least some minimal level of regulation is
required if for no other reason than to protect property rights, enforce
contracts, and adjudicate disagreements. The question is what degree and kinds
of regulation should exist beyond this minimalist level.

 

Economist
Paul Heyne used to use a traffic analogy to highlight important dynamics of
economies. He invited us to ask if an economy is more like air traffic
controllers managing flights in and out of an airport or is it more like an
urban traffic network.

 

“… Air
traffic controllers can reasonably be said to manage the movement of commercial
airline traffic: they impose upon all the pilots flying commercial places a
central plan that dictates precisely for each one the time of take-off, the
speed and path of ascent, the route to be followed, and the time, speed, and
path of descent and landing. But no one manages the flow of vehicular traffic
on the streets of a modern city in this way. Drivers choose their own times of
departure, routes to follow, speed of travel, maneuvers along the way, and
final destination, reporting their plans to no one and continually revising
these plans as they see fit. Drivers are not completely free to do anything
they please, of course. They are constrained by the decisions of other drivers
in the vicinity. There are also “rules of the game,” some of them very specific
but others quite vague, that limit choices drivers may make. Within these
rules, however, and sometimes a bit outside them, drivers pursuing their own
interests with very little concern for the interests of others (largely because
of extremely limited knowledge of those interests) coordinate their
interactions and arrive safely and expeditiously at their destinations.

 

No one
manages this process in the sense of controlling outcomes. Traffic engineers
can influence the process by changing the timing of lights, altering speed
limits, or adjusting parking regulations, and over time they can increase their
influence through street construction and closure. But they can neither predict
nor control the specific results. The most they can aim for is smooth and rapid
flow. An air traffic controller is an oikonomos.
There is no oikonomos in the world of
urban traffic, neither on the streets nor in the control centers of traffic
engineers, and anyone who aspired to become an oikonomos of urban traffic world would have failed to understand
the complexity of the problem.”  (“Are
Christians Called to be “Stewards of Creation?”, Stewardship Journal, Win. 1993, 19)

 

Metaphorically,
pure capitalism is the urban traffic network while pure socialism is the air
traffic control model. (The distributivist “make everything local” model would
be, I suppose, the no transportation model.) In reality, all economies are some
mixture. Other challenges enter the mix that are not captured by this metaphor.

 

For example,
capitalism tends to create large corporations. They are needed for their
productive capacities in some industries but their size presents the
opportunity for a variety of abuses. That requires a strong government to check
abuse. Yet, strong government tends to invite corporate powers to work the
political system in their favor precisely because it is so powerful.

 

Cultural
value systems also come into play. For instance, relative to the United States,
most European nations have flatter income distributions due to redistributive
policies, but also less mobility up and down the economic ladder. The United
States has a wider income distribution but greater mobility up and down the
economic ladder. Europe has tended to value stability while the United States
has tended to value dynamism. Which is better? There are trade-offs either way.
The bottom line is that there is no universal model of capitalism we can point
to in application because many of the specifics are worked in decisions about
trade-offs based on cultural values.

 

The
challenge for theological reflection on economics systems is that the term
“capitalism” carries considerably more baggage for some than I have described
in this post. Capitalism for some names an ethos of greed, selfishness,
consumerism and waste (none of which are essential to capitalism but are values
fed into the system.) Therefore, they recoil when economists and others speak
affirmatively about “capitalism.” Similarly economists view visceral objections
to capitalism (meaning to them, division of labor, market exchange, private
property, and capital) as ideological close mindedness. I continue to be amazed
at the number of books and articles I read that bring capitalism into a
discussion without defining it.

 

Capitalism
is often characterized as an ogre that oppresses people with consumerism. More
accurately the challenge of capitalism is not oppression but seduction. Some
say that the core sin of capitalist societies is greed, but along with Jay
Richards I think it is gluttony. We don’t know how to control our appetites.

 

Another
challenge leveled at capitalism is that it is based on survival of the fittest.
It promotes individualism. Division of labor and trade disconnects us from the
final product and from the natural resources used in production. Yet another
feature of evolution is that of emerging complexity and cooperation in
organisms. Cells cease to be single cell creatures and emerge into multiple
cell creatures with individual cells becoming ever more specialized. It can be
argued that division of labor and markets help integrate humans (cells) into a
more evolved highly cooperative creature.

 

I’ve gone
long (again). It is impossible to capture all the nuances I want to in one post
but hopefully there is enough here to generate some discussion. 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(24)
post a comment
Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 7:21 am


” Capital is wealth placed in productive service.” How much of the wealth in this country do you think is capital? Especially now, when people keep talking about “riding it [the recession] out” by sitting on their wealth? And when banks aren’t lending, etc? And what should be done about wealth that is not capital? Should we tax it to get it back into circulation?
And Michael,
Why is it important, from an economic point of view, to make the distinction between gluttony and greed?
If capitalism is defined roughly as private ownership of enterprise, I think we need a mix of public and private, and I also think we need to stop calling every public enterprise “socialism,” because that’s absurd, given the loaded connotation of the word. If commonsense would reinstate itself, we would recognize that the government runs some enterprises more efficiently than the private sector and the private sector others and not have hysterics over embracing a mixed system. Mixed systems work. China is prospering under a mixed system. The U.S. prospered under a mixed system. It was only after the second Bush administration finally “finished” the Reagan revolution and knocked too many legs out from under the government that the economy collapsed. Luckily, they hadn’t really finished and there’s enough left over of New Deal supports that we’re not in a terrible crisis. I think we need to stop thinking in the terms of polarities of capitalism and socialism and begin creating a new “ism” that embraces both the private and governmental sector roles in positive ways. The Bible, of course, demands that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked and practice social justice and this needs to be strongly incorporated into any Christian economic vision.
I’m reading Middletown in Transition now, a study of Muncie in the 1930s and it’s quite interesting in light of current problems. The business class of Muncie was sure the world would end when FDR was elected and that government stimulus was the worst horror–until the stimulus money came their way and they prospered. They had a false idol of being a “pure” capitalist culture and yet they did better when they embraced a mixed economy. My point is, again, I think we need to get rid of both the terms “capitalist” and “socialist” and come up with a term people can unite around to better develop an economy that won’t have periodic crises and will better care for the vulnerable.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 7:26 am


And I’m concerned about the traffic metaphor. It seems to me that anytime a place gets beyond a certain size, you have a traffic nightmare, whether it be the congestion, honking and gridlock of a big city or the endless driving in sprawling suburbia. And then you have road rage … all of which leads me to think we don’t need more traffic lights and regulations so to speak, but a new way of doing things. What are the implications of that for our economic system?



report abuse
 

Rick

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:46 am


Diane-
“It was only after the second Bush administration finally “finished” the Reagan revolution and knocked too many legs out from under the government that the economy collapsed.”
The problem is more complex than that- and private sector businesses, individuals, AND government all are partially responsible.



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:47 am


Capitalism is often characterized as an ogre that oppresses people with consumerism…
I have friends who are both left and right of me. Those on the left seem to me to reflexively assume that capitalism is the opiate of both evil geniuses and ignorant rubes who think the world is flat and ends at the water’s edge. “Corporations” cannot be uttered without a sneer by them. It concerns me because my opinion is that capitalistic nations are the ones most likely to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I know there are abuses and victims of exploitation but I also know that corporations are 1) comprised of people and 2) produce many helpful valuable things that make people’s lives better. I admit I feel a little fear that many people are starting to quietly assume that capitalism has been unmasked as that insatiable, oppressive ogre and the ogre should be met with pitchforks and torches. The consequences of demonizing capitalism while turning what I think is a blind eye to the failings of other systems concern me.
That said, I think the warning against seduction is right on. So easy to be seduced without realizing it. It calls for time spent with God, reorienting away from Counterfeit Gods :-)



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:56 am


If commonsense would reinstate itself, we would recognize that the government runs some enterprises more efficiently than the private sector and the private sector others and not have hysterics over embracing a mixed system. Mixed systems work. China is prospering under a mixed system…
Are you offering China as an argument in favor of what the US should be doing or am I just misreading this? You do realize the Chinese government is an oppressive government?



report abuse
 

Rick

posted November 4, 2009 at 9:08 am


MatthewS-
“Are you offering China as an argument in favor of what the US should be doing or am I just misreading this?”
Glad you asked that. I had to look twice at that line to make sure I was reading that right.



report abuse
 

Wm Tanksley

posted November 4, 2009 at 10:05 am


“For example, capitalism tends to create large corporations.”
Not true. Capitalism hinders large corporations; they’re inefficient and almost incapable of innovation. They’re an attractive way to deal with a very stable economy, but economies normally do not remain stable for long enough to allow large companies to prosper.
“That requires a strong government to check abuse. Yet, strong government tends to invite corporate powers to work the political system in their favor precisely because it is so powerful.”
Ironically, strong government is precisely the reason why large corporations and conglomerates are so stable in our present system.
First, our laws provide almost complete immunity against civil lawsuit for all the people inside a corporation, so it’s legally beneficial to form a corporation, and it’s economical to place as many resources inside the corporation as possible, so that they can be protected as a whole (and they can pay each other’s lawyer bills).
Second, large corporations, although hindered in innovation, are very stable (since they have to be run by managers, rather than by entrepreneurs), so they have an easier time complying with a huge and complex system of laws.
Third, large corporations can use their relatively larger resources and much greater focus to lobby strong government to change the laws so that the specific corporate practices of that corporation become legally required of the entire industry — to the public and to legislators this is called “common industry standards”; to the corporation doing the lobbying it’s simply no change at all; to other large corporation it’s an expensive change in how they work; and to entrepreneurs it’s a barrier to entry, and possibly even a ban on innovations in how the business is done.
-Wm



report abuse
 

Michael A

posted November 4, 2009 at 10:16 am


“strong government is precisely the reason why large corporations and conglomerates are so stable” – Wm
Strong government is precisely the reason why large corporations and conglomerates EXIST.
The very entities are created and given their being in law. The protection Wm mentioned is based on the notion that government has created this thing called a corporation separate and distinct from the capitalists who own and manage it.
So we need a strong government to prevent government-created entities from getting too big?



report abuse
 

Jjoe

posted November 4, 2009 at 10:19 am


“It concerns me because my opinion is that capitalistic nations are the ones most likely to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Why do you say that? My life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all influenced, if not out and out controlled, by lobbyists and corporations with more rights than I have. E.g. my life is subordinate to the right of the medical-industrial complex to make as much profit as possible.
I think capitalistic nations are the ones most likely to defend the right to make money. Capitalistic nations are not likely to be looking out for the common good.



report abuse
 

Rick

posted November 4, 2009 at 10:44 am


Jjoe-
“Capitalistic nations are not likely to be looking out for the common good.”
That is not necessarily the case. Inherent in the capitalistic nations is a sense of freedom, including economic freedom, and that all have the opportunity to participate in that economic system. That is why monopolies are problems for the system, and are restricted.
Also, there is a sense of “iron sharpening iron” that benefits all. We all benefit by the challenging aspects of the system as products and services are improved through competition.
Are there problems with capitalism? Certainly. Since is comes down to being driven by fallen humanity, it is not perfect.
You may disagree with the how effective the system is, and how well it benefits all. However, to say that capitalistic nations are “not looking out for the common good” is just not correct.



report abuse
 

Michael W. Kruse

posted November 4, 2009 at 11:36 am


I?m in meetings today, making to hard to respond.
Diane #1, #2
I?m thinking of greed and gluttony more in terms of how they were sin in terms of the seven deadly sins. We(Americans, Europe, etc.) live in the era of post-materialism ? life is no longer about meeting basic material needs for most people. The struggle has moved from trying to have enough to trying to knowing when we have enough. Greed to me seems to connote a rapacious desire to acquire while gluttony seems to connote a rapacious desire to consume.
As to the traffic metaphor, no metaphor is perfect. As traffic problems develop cities do have to adapt. But do you see any cities adopting an air traffic control models?
The traffic metaphor is intended illustrate the problem on information and feedback within a human system. What troubles me is not that there can be disagreement about roles of government but ? on one hand ? persistently minimizing of the complexity human systems and the challenges that presents and ? on the other hand ? seemingly presuming that someone does have the sufficient ongoing knowledge to direct complex systems.
Some run around touting free markets as the solution to everything and others want to wish away the complexity of human systems and how they can be managed. Both strike me as a preference for the neatness of political agendas to the messiness of ongoing discernment. It strikes me that know matter how much I try (here and elsewhere) to cast this discussion as a dialog about tensions between competing challenges, some simply dismiss the challenge that creates obstacles to their ideology.



report abuse
 

Travis Greene

posted November 4, 2009 at 12:06 pm


I think the Pope was right on.



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted November 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm


my life is subordinate to the right of the medical-industrial complex to make as much profit as possible.
I understand some very real concerns but I would also say that this statement strikes me as hyperbolic and unbalanced. My wife recently had some kind of a heart episode (ventricular fibrillation or something like that). We are young and it seems like a freak thing, hopefully won’t happen again. The medical-industrial complex (sounds like a 007 villian!) has produced a pill that she will take for 6 months that will make sure her heart stays regulated. Then she can taper off the pill. This drug has been out for a while and is mass-produced. We got it at CVS, mentioning how much it would cost at WalMart. We will pay about $25 for the entire 6 month’s supply.
If someone speaks of the medical-industrial complex as if it were only an evil beast out to make a profit, that person ignores the great and affordable benefit to my wife. I don’t honestly think the pills are that important for her but they are very important to some people. But those pills did not rain out of the sky and they didn’t grow on a plant. The medical-industrial complex had to take a risk and research the pill, test it, probably throw some bad efforts away and try again, take the risk of it not working right and being sued, and finally releasing it. The profit helps drive the risk-taking behavior that results in my wife having a helpful affordable pill.
The US is an important player worldwide in medical technology. I think that people gloss over the good when they focus only on the fact that in spite of the failures and losses, there is real profit made by the medical-industrial complex. If you shoot this evil beast in the head, it will no longer produce 6 months of heart pills for $25 (total, not $25 per month) – too bad for you if you needed those pills.
I’m not trying to combat you, personally, Jjoe, so I hope this doesn’t come across as combative. Just trying to consider the balance that many lives are saved and/or improved by drugs and devices produced by the medical-industrial complex.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm


As for China, I agree it is oppressive, from what I’ve read. (I’ve never been there.) But speaking in purely economic terms–which is what we are doing??–China with a mixed economic system has become an economically wealthy nation. All I am saying, like Michael, is that it would help to get beyond rigid labels and begin focused on building that economy in which we don’t muzzle the threshing ox and in which everyone prospers, etc.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm


Michael,
I think problem in the conversation you are trying to start is that we have two poles–which you, obviously, see!!–in which some people see “capitalism” as wielding a big stick and being valorized endlessly in the country and others see “capitalism” as under attack and blamed for all the ills in society. I think you are trying to express a clearer view of capitalism. However, what might help balance this series would be going back and forth between offering clearer view of capitalism and a clearer view of “socialism,” for lack of a better term.



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted November 4, 2009 at 2:19 pm


focused on building that economy in which we don’t muzzle the threshing ox and in which everyone prospers, etc.
The Chinese government prospering is not equal to Chinese citizens prospering. One example: Amnesty International ( I won’t include the link so my comment doesn’t get spam-blocked) has a piece “China: Olympics evictions protester kept in prison unitl after Games are over in bid to silence him” The Chinese government exercised their power to destroy homes that were in the way Olympics, then jailed those who protested. Not having a free press, they simply did not face scrutiny from a free press.
Another example of Chinese oppression is the Great Wall firewall. In China, you can search for events like Tiananmen Square but the government’s firewall will make sure you see only their official stories, no dissenting stories. No free flow of information.
No offense, but if that is “everyone prospering”, I would much prefer to languish here :-)



report abuse
 

dopderbeck

posted November 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm


Good post! It’s helpful to contrast “capitalism” with the other great “isms,” totalitarianism, socialism and communism. None are perfect systems, each has some positives, but on balance it seems clear that capitalist systems have resulted in greater freedom, health, education, and so on than other systems, by far.
It’s helpful to note, as you do, that a “capitalist” economy is not an “unregulated” economy. I think this is where lots of rhetorical ink and pixels get unnecessarily spilled. There is always “regulation.” The question is, when is regulation appropriate, for what ends, and to what extent?



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm


OK. I give up. I’m certainly not advocating we go the way of China’s repressive social policies, but they are a materially wealthy country. They have been called the last economy to grow to greatness on cheap oil. From what I understand reading newspapers and magazines (I am hardly an economist), they have lent us massive amounts of money and are keeping us afloat. I have read that they are worried about the amount of dollars they are holding, fearing what will happen to themselves if we go under. I have read that we can’t engage them too forcefully on human rights issues because of how much we need them financially. Would I want to live in China? No. But they are a wealthy country and if we are looking at how countries attain wealth, we should perhaps look at them. Saudi Arabia is another wealthy country–I would not want to live there, either. I would not want to be unable to drive a car because of my gender. But I can’t deny they’re wealthy because I uncomfortable with their social system. I think we know they are wealthy from oil, but they seemed to have amassed wealth through monarchy and government control, not capitalism. Didn’t they nationalize their oil industry? I’m not saying that either system–China’s or SA’s– is what I would embrace, but capitalism is not the only successful economic system.
On the other hand–and I have been distracted lately, and am trying with my mind only half alert to play the Devil’s advocate to keep this interesting thread alive–and I thank you Michael for this thread– I can’t be an uncritical apologist for the capitalism I’ve seen played out in our system, especially over the last decade. Yes, regulated capitalism is the best system. Dopderdeck is right that we need to argue over how much regulation–how much “mix”–we have in this system. Something has certainly gone out of whack in current times. What do you think Michael? Assuming we need more regulation than we’ve had, given the current interesting situation in which we would have had a global financial meltdown without governments propping up economies (assuming what I read in the papers is not fabrication)–what do you think is the new best level of regulation?



report abuse
 

CMN

posted November 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm


In general, I define “capitalism” and “socialism” as two means of owning resources, and “market” and “centrally planned” as two ways of deciding how to allocate resources. Thus, the USA is a market capitalist economy – we have mostly private ownership and mostly use markets to allocate resources – while the USSR was a centrally planned socialist economy. The welfare states of the USA and western Europe do not alter the basic market capitalist bent of these economies; rather, they layer in a redistributive scheme based on taxes and transfers. But the welfare state does not make these economies “socialist” because resources are still mainly privately owned.
Obviously, it is possible to mix private and state ownership of resources, and it is possible to have a market socialist economy.
Furthermore, whether political rights are protected is probably correlated with the type of economy a country has, but it is not an essential feature other than this: a market capitalist economy probably requires a large amount of freedom for it to operate well. Thus, the causation is more likely to run from political freedom to a market capitalist economy than in the other direction.



report abuse
 

Michael W. Kruse

posted November 4, 2009 at 7:28 pm


I haven’t been ignoring you all. I couldn’t get access to JC at the Louisville airport. Weird. I’ll have jump in shortly.



report abuse
 

Blessed Economist

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:38 pm


You refer to ?capitalism with regulation?. I do not like the word regulation, because it implies the household manger that you spoke of in your previous post. I prefer capitalism with law. And capitalism needs only very few laws to function effectively: law against theft; a law providing for contracts to be enforced; and not much more.
The American system is not capitalism. It is a system of collusion between political power, business power and military power. The technical name for this system is fascism, but most Americans are not ready to accept that yet.
Capitalism does not create big business. Large corporations are the result of limited liability laws and other laws that protect big business. Banks that are too big to fail are the result financial regulation. This system of collusion between politicians, big business and the military system has produced the problems that America is now facing. Further regulation will not resolve these problems, but will give more protection to business, which will eventually leader to a new crisis. Here comes the Beast.



report abuse
 

Blessed Economist

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:44 pm


Diane
Capitalism is system that allows people to pool their resources to be more productive and earn more income. People are free to use that income as they choose. They can choose to give it to others.
Socialism is system of distribution, in which political power is used to compulsorily take the stuff that one group of people have produced and give to others. That does not sound like the gospel to me.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 4, 2009 at 11:25 pm


Blessed Economist,
I like what you have to say. But do really think our government is fascist at this stage?
CMN: I like this: In general, I define “capitalism” and “socialism” as two means of owning resources, and “market” and “centrally planned” as two ways of deciding how to allocate resources. Thus, the USA is a market capitalist economy – we have mostly private ownership and mostly use markets to allocate resources – while the USSR was a centrally planned socialist economy. The welfare states of the USA and western Europe do not alter the basic market capitalist bent of these economies; rather, they layer in a redistributive scheme based on taxes and transfers. But the welfare state does not make these economies “socialist” because resources are still mainly privately owned.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted November 5, 2009 at 6:59 am


Blessed Economist,
I like what you have to say. But do really think our government is fascist at this stage?
CMN: I like this: In general, I define “capitalism” and “socialism” as two means of owning resources, and “market” and “centrally planned” as two ways of deciding how to allocate resources. Thus, the USA is a market capitalist economy – we have mostly private ownership and mostly use markets to allocate resources – while the USSR was a centrally planned socialist economy. The welfare states of the USA and western Europe do not alter the basic market capitalist bent of these economies; rather, they layer in a redistributive scheme based on taxes and transfers. But the welfare state does not make these economies “socialist” because resources are still mainly privately owned.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.