Wilde was right – a philistine is a man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing; we inhabit a philistine society. We talk a lot about ‘human rights’, but as even the briefest acquaintanceship with Western foreign policy towards China and Saudi Arabia will reveal, we do not put them ahead of making money. We are happy to lecture Russia, but then America is not heavily dependent on Russia for very much. This points to the wider societal question of how we find a language for dealing with things which are valuable for what they are, not for what they are worth? An example would be the idea of the inalienable dignity of every one of God’s children. This is only partly captured in our language of ‘human rights’, and as the examples just offered suggest, is far more contingent than we might care to suppose. Involved in this is the question which the former British Prime Minister, David Cameron formulated in terms of the ‘Big Society’. Mocked by the media for its vagueness it was, in fact, nothing more than what Edmund Burke called the ‘small batallions – that is those bodies intermediate between the State and the individual. We in the West have tended to reduce the role of such groups, not least in the area of welfare provision, and, as the State has come to realise there are limits on what it can do, gaps, dangerous gaps, have been left, and having destroyed most of the ‘small batallions’ we have simply left some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society at the mercy of circumstances which are not in their favour. It is one thing to drive down on welfare claimants who defraud the system, it is quite another to invent a system which routinely tells chronically sick people that they are fit to work, whilst running a parallel system which allows fabulously wealth international companies to pay ‘all the tax that is required’, when that tax is less then some individuals pay. That creates a distrust in the system which is corrosive of the bonds of society.
The Government in the UK makes noises about devolving power to the big provincial cities, but even if it did more and actually began to deliver on the promises, it is far from clear that it would do much to alleviate the sense of helplessness and deracination in the populace which has helped to fuel the anger we saw in the ‘Brexit’ campaign, and which we see in the Trump’s support. It is very easy for the metropolitan elite to dismiss these things, but we have already seen their effects in the UK, and even if Trump loses (and lose he will) those who backed him are unlikely to have the anger assuaged by anything President Clinton II might or might not do; quite the opposite.
But we do not have a real concept of the common good, we have lost, or at the most optimistic reading, are losing, a sense of shared values. We lack a sense of what it is human beings are for, why we exist, and what we should be doing with our lives. The notion, popular during the Reagan/Thatcher years, that wealth creation and ‘trickle down’ to the rest of us, would produce some sort of answer, even if only unlimited growth and the consumerist utopia it promised, seemed, for a while, before the crash of 2008, to contain a sort of answer which, whilst unpalatable and even chilling to those of us who thought human beings should be aiming higher than the wallet/pocket-book, nonetheless kept a lot of people happy, has crumbled into the dust of stagnant, and even regressive income distribution. The failure of this ‘dream’ has produce a great deal of anger but no solutions.
To Christians none of this is surprising, but what might be is the failure of Christian thinkers to put forward an alternative – one based on a conception of the human condition which sees us not as consumers but as brothers and sisters and as children of the living God. We cannot, of course, expect secular thinkers to do this, but we might expect Christian ones to be less backward in coming forward. It is not, after all, as though the secularist alternatives seem either varied, new, or particularly brave.
NEO said:
While those little battalions do seem to be missing, it seems that I am often looking further back than Burke these days. Today I, and “The Clerk of Oxford” wrote of the 1000th anniversary of the Battle of Assundun, which end the campaign leading to the Danish Conquest. (hers is here)
http://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-danish-conquest-part-13-battle-of.html
In it, she quotes from the old English poem “The Wanderer” which seems rather apt to many of our feelings lately. I think this is her translation.
The days are departed,
all the glories of the kingdom of the earth;
there are now no kings nor caesars
nor gold-givers such as there once were,
when they performed among themselves so many magnificent deeds,
and lived in most lordly majesty.
Fallen is all that duguð, joys are departed,
weaker ones now live and possess the world,
gain use of it by their labour. The blossom is bowed down,
the nobility of earth ages and grows sere,
as now does every man across the world.
And yes, much of mine is based on her earlier posts, an admirable worker in the garden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Interesting post that I am having difficulty digesting; for I do not know what you are advocating [a return to an agrarian society, perhaps] and I am not sure that the points regarding corporations, their usefulness and their ‘value’ to society, taxes etc. are brought out clearly. That is why it is useful in politics to blame the ‘evil’ corporations for the ills of those who have gripes, of any sort, regarding their lives. But it is far more complicated and at every avenue that you present it seems that we could debate and discuss the intricacies of a market culture, types of markets, and where these markets have led us . . . or should I say where the governments have allowed practices that are nothing short of an insider’s understanding of a rigged roulette table; short selling etc. and not having to cover your losses is at the root of much of what is wrong in the stock markets but it is only one of very many valueless practices that have developed over time. A fair market was a wonderful way for the average man to invest his earnings and let them be put to use to build a better economy with better jobs and more disposable income if it flourished.
But of course the most rigged corporate system or ‘company’ is the government itself that pays its employees [many without much in the way of skills or intellect] higher than the private sector jobs being offered. They never get fired, they get a raise every year whether the GDP is up or down and the people must be taxed at higher rates in order to allow them to operate as though successful at something. We are not getting our money’s worth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I don’t see an anti-corporate diatribe here, partly perhaps because I know C well enough to know better. What he laments, I think is the same as I do (and likely you as well) we as churches as well as other private associations have sloughed off our willingness to take action on our own to the government. That’s the little battalions that Burke spoke so fondly of, as in our case did dTocqueville.
If so, he’s right, they have mostly gone MIA, at least to the extent of expecting the government to fund their activities. The State may have a role, although our countries worked best when it didn’t, but direct local action is always better than the bureaucratic equivalent, not least because government cannot ever match the flexibility of local association.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
I agree wholeheartedly with that; for I blame much on our state funded welfare which has become a business, poorly run, ineffective and ripe for corruption. But the churches did not give up their help . . . they are simply being run out of various arenas . . . such as orphanages and adoption agencies and now medical fields and hospitals. You find more being done in third world countries where they let Chrisitian charities operate under their religious principles instead of forcing them to violate their principles. If they continue to do that, then there will be no ‘little battalions’ left, for sure. We would do more but government has to get out of the way and allow us to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
And that’s our fault. Back when the welfare state was getting going guess who the biggest supporters were? Yep, the churches, Catholic and Protestant, all wanted to delegate their mission to care for the poor to the government (and it’s tax authority). Yes, they had very good intentions, but it turned out a monster case of unintended consequences when the government turned on them, as it was bound to, to secure its own existence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
Well nothing has changed much and that is why people have lost faith in their religion and in their governments. They seem to be playing together as a team, using the same words, though often meaning different things and aiming at goals that are far apart from one another. The Pope’s coziness with the Godless UN is but a spectacular example of this as is his wink and nods to murderous regimes and regime leaders . . . all purportedly to help the people suffering under their tyranny. It is pointless, it has never worked before and it will not work now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
To your last comment on the earlier market collapse and recovery by Coolidge is that the only thing they had then and we had during the later Wilson/Roosevelt crash is economic independence from the rest of the world. Though the rest of the world experienced the crash of the 30’s they too recovered in about 2 years where we struggled unsuccessfully to do so. This new mutual economic assured destruction has made it almost impossible for countries to act individually if the greatest countries of economic growth dicide upon a path. So for the moment the entire world is mired in this faux recovery doing just as Obama has done which simply delays paying the piper while debt and spending go through the roof to a point where it now appears unlikely that any of us will ever be able to repay our debts or reign in our spending. What happened in Greece is going to happen to everyone eventually or else they have to collective hit a reset button, clear the slate of all debt and issue new currency; a fact that is risky both for civil unrest and for political unrest to those who are bankrolling our debt. I do think China is a false economy . . . and if they did not manipulate their currency would be like everyone else: broke. So yes, Russia deals with commodities mostly. They have value whether in a down market or not, and Putin has the best chance of all nations of recovering where the rest of us find our economies self-destructing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Your thesis has some merit, I think, but the rest of the world did not recover quickly. Germany for instance was still in collapse in 1933, that how Hitler came to power, after that it recovered, sure, by building military goods, which is not productive, really.
For the most part the independence ended in the Great War, and with the recognition that the US was both the largest ag producer and the largest industrial producer, and the introduction of the Federal Reserve. It was the leadership of Coolidge that made the difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
My focus goes along the line of Catholic social teaching, which emphasises the dignity of labour and the dangers of a purely market focussed economics. Left to itself business will push wages as low as it can and drive up profits to increase shareholder value. I agree with what you say about Governments and their shortcomings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
From the many companies I have worked for they certainly had as their goal the maximixing of profits. However, it was not at willingly a deprivation of a fair wage for the labor rendered. You pay what you can afford to pay without losing the ability to sell your product which puts people on the streets looking for work. Some jobs are starter jobs that teach you skills . . . their time is not as valuable as those with skills an different skills are worthy of more expense as there is quite a bit of competition for the best employees. When the company can produce product that will be viable competition to others in the same market then the company can grow supply more jobs and perhaps develop new and better products. I just don’t see sweat shops and child labor abuse in the West. We provide more perks than ever before; holidays, vacations, health insurance, in some cases profit sharing etc. How would you make a business (that many rely on to put food on the table) viable in their market place? You have to look at everything and wages generally go up when the company is growing and they go down when the company is losing its market share. Its either that or going belly up. Business decisions even if you call them market driven to drive up profits benefits its workers in the long run and the consumers who buy the products. Yes laws must protect against abuses; but when was the last time you saw a reputable company abusing these laws? After all they are gambling that they won’t get caught because if caught it could put them and all their workers out of business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
This is what we are told, and yet the system is not delivering – at least many ordinary people cannot see it is. I think profit sharing a good idea – and we can learn a mothers from the Germans
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
The only reason why there is no delivery is that almost half of the people are out of work. We are producing more products than people can buy due to our governments intervention into the markets; picking winners and losers and deciding who was ‘worthy’ of being bailed out. Of course saving a horse that can no longer earn its keep without an injection of public money is not worth saving. The market used to render its justice by the cold hard facts that make them viable or inviable entities.
We also cannot forget that corporate taxes are a gigantic hoax on the people. They are consumers of products from many other industries and the taxes from all the supplies is baked into the cost of their goods. And who pays for those additional government grabs is the customer. If it makes a company insolvable then it will go under and we all lose . . . loss of another competitor and loss of many jobs all along the supply chain. There is no easy answer to this outside of living in small isolated communities and I fear those days have left us long ago. Our economy is a sham. In my estimation we have more people employed than there are actual jobs or jobs that can easily be replaced by automation if they choose to make the investment. But then . . . you are, as a businesman committing a slow form of suicide. The less workers . . . the less buyers who can afford to purchase products. As I say it is way too complicated to make overarching statements regarding the behaviour of businesses and their management or owners . . . though we all know stories of those who receive obscene payment for sometimes less than sterling results.
But I am more worried about the new ideas and new entrepreneurs that want to start a new business. For they are at a great disadvantage . . . having many legal, tax, and regulatory requirements that they cannot afford to address. They do not have the floors of tax lawyers and accountants that the multi-nationals have. If we are ever going to get more people off the dole we are going to have to find a means of unshackling the power of human inventiveness and let them get a start. And those who are employed by them are wooed away by the larger corporations because the small business cannot compete with all the perks offered by the large corporations. I blame government regulations that are imposed by politicians that know nothing at all about business and have never created a real job that produces something in their life. What they have brought us is a bloated bureaucracy that wastes our tax money by causing more harm than good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’m not sure of that. If the Governments had not bailed out the banks, how many firms would have gone under and how many jobs would have been lost? The idea that markets can function in a socially responsible way left to themselves seems not a experiment anyone is willing to try; I can’t imagine any presidential candidate getting far on that one nowadays.
On corporate taxes, I don’t know who is paying them. but I know Google, Amazon and Apple aren’t; neither is Trump; is anyone?
I am unconvinced that, left to themselves, business would be virtuous. There’s little in the social teaching of the Church which would lead us to think it is so. Yes, the Good Samaritan was able to help because he had money and a heart, but Our Lord’s comments on wealth and its effects suggest that he would not have been convinced either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
If the governments had not bailed out the banks there would have been a recession and a normal recovery of 2 to 3 years. This faux economy is not recovering at all . . . it is deepening despite what they would have us believe. I never said that markets do not to be regulated . . . I did say that politicians are not savvy enough to know what is needed. Their full confidence (in the US) all come from the corporate ranks of Godman Sachs. But what good are regulations with loopholes for crony captialists who are the biggest donors for the political machines? It creates a dishonest system that caters to donors and why should we be surprised if they take advantage of a tax code that is undecipherale by normal people . . . only a great legal department can wade through the mountain of forms needed to be filled out and filed.
As for Amazon, Apple et al, if they get hammered on taxes then they will pass the cost on to the consumer . . . it is very simple. If they lose market share due to this then they will lose market share or worse, go out of business. Nobody is going to willingly pay more taxes than is legally required . . . Trump knows the laws and abided by them. If people don’t like the laws then vote these regulators out of office and get a more sane tax code.
Businesses are not in the ‘business’ of virtue . . . although if run properly they can give living wage jobs to a great number of people. That is the virtue of investing to start a business. It gives a path to others to raise a family and gives them the dignity of creating something and having a purpose for their day. Now if we are to revert back to small populations in isolation then they can certainly try, as the Church has always done, to instill the social teachings that you desire. Individuals can still act as the Good Samaritan but a corporation is in the business of creating things that people want or need and giving a living to those who make these items.
Wealth is relative; if they are like the kings of old and which Christ made familiar reference we find few. Most have their money involved in investments; in other companies and in new products and services. The days of treasure rooms is not the reality of our day. Without the investments of those involved in the stock market many public companies woud have to close their doors unless they can secure venture capital from those who think that the company has a good idea and that it will give a return on their investment.
Let’s face it money does not just sit around but circulates. It pays the bills and allows time to for companies who are operating in the red to emerge as companies who operate in the black. As I say we cannot be too simplistic in our evaluation of any company. I wonder how much money in an Apple product or Amazon product consists of taxes on taxed raw materials etc.
I know that back in the 70’s I read an article that showed that within the cost of a new automobile, 70% of the price was tied up in taxes . . . from the ore, the suppliers the taxes paid to local, state and federal agencies, and the taxes that are built into the wages of their workers. Of course this only holds true if you build your product in the US. The real question for me is whether or not multi-national corporations, who have no loyalty to any country but only to profit snd are the real drivers of this ‘profit only’ model that people hold in their minds for all large corporations. Even at that the median profit for the mony expended by the gas and oil companies is about 3%. Not that long ago, you could make more money putting it in the market and closing your doors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Tomorrow’s piece is a longer consideration of the social teaching of the church.
Last time there was a great crash, 1931, it took a good deal more than 2 to 3 years to solve it – it took a global war! Not, I think, a risk anyone would want to take.
The argument that Apple and co would pass on any taxes to the consumer would be one every business could use. I don’t see the founders going to the poor house soon. These people want an educated work force and infrastructure which allows them to trade – but they don’t want to pay their taxes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
They pay what is required though C. What more should they do? They are being wooed [by the fact that they are multinationals] by countries all over the world to headquarter their company. We are far down the list of the places that are most favorable taxwise to these competing nations. When I was working for Densitron they headquartered in the UK because the tax advantage was huge compared both to Japan and to the US. So what we did was pay a ‘royalty’ to the headquarters . . . which was only a sleight of hand move of currency from one profit center to another . . . but it was all legal in the UK, the US and Japan.
In another example, I worked for a small company that went through a recession in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The owner used his own money to pay people and never laid anyone off though he was bankrolling the operation from his private funds and retirement money. So it is hard to compare a personally run company with a publically traded company. They have different committments. They are committed to shareholders as much as they are committed to their people. Ideally they want to satisfy both and thus afford to buy the best and most imaginative talent that they can afford.
1931was handled the same way we did in 2008. We spent government money on project after project and infused government money into society. That is why it took so long to recover. The same effect we seeing today. They are all Keynsians and will not adjust their economic theories to the Austrian school as represented by the Mises institute for instance. But politicians are easily swayed by those who profit from the bailout: Goldman Sachs, the National Banks, the automobile industry etc. They did the same thing years ago with Pennsyvania railroad and subsidized Amtrak. It nevers makes a profit . . . it is only another paper cut that is slowly bleeding away our tax money. As Reagan said, ‘the most frightening thing there is a man who comes to your door saying he is from the Government and he is there to help you.’ I think that about sums up the circumstances that got us into this mess to begin with and now the non-recovery that is being touted as a turn-around. We are far from that. It may take another war to end this one just as it did in ’31.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I’m not sure any democracy would survive offering its electorate the sort of pain which would follow the Austrian school’s remedy; which is why no one has.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
If you are talking about Catholic Social Justice, why in the world would you defend those who violated every principle of the ‘common good’ and allow them to escape the penalty of losing their power and wealth? They escaped without consequences that were due to them by their own actions. As they say, “Don’t do the crime if you won’t do the time.”
Yes, the pain would have been sharper and shorter compared to longer and duller. But the new currency ‘bubble’ if it should break [and I am all but certain that it will] is going to be far more painful in the next crash than it would have been had we allowed these jokers to simply go out of existence. It brings trust and honesty back to the system which is what gives it stability in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I wasn’t, but then no State is following the CST model.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
No but there are many good corporations that have and even some rather good banks who stayed away from the bundling schemes that were developed. Seems to me that the Church, if it really meant what it teaches, would have made it clear to the people so that they might have a chance to change the role that government has had in all of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Sure we always come back to the depression of ’29 artificially prolonged by first Hoover and then Roosevelt. What we don’t talk about is the worse recession of 1921, where Coolidge left it alone and the recovery was very sharp within about 18 months and led to the 20s, one of the sharpest growth inclines in history. And not only for the rich but for all levels of society. It was brought to an end at least as much by financing the German reparations to France and England (so they could pay their war debt to America, speaking of taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another) as by anything else.
Again we see the leftist propensity to appear to do good rather than leaving things alone to do real good. The current example is, of course, the 2008 recession where government intervention has caused it to drag along indefinitely. Is Putin the new Hitler who will solve the current depression? I hope not, but it increasingly appears so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Not sure that many economic historians would share that interesting analysis – but there are reasons no one has tried it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
True enough, and part of that is that most believe in Keynesian analysis. There are, but what we have been doing, certainly hasn’t worked, maybe we need some new analysis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Agreed – and that is where Catholic social teaching has something to offer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I completely agree. It has very much to offer. While I don’t think it a proper use of government, that does not mean that we have no duty to the poor, in any sense of the word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
“To Christians none of this is surprising, but what might be is the failure of Christian thinkers to put forward an alternative”
May I ask…..what is your definition of a Christian, and even still, a Christian thinker.? Most westerners believe they are Christian souls, even if they don’t closely follow a religion.
You must be aware of my position. Christians are born again folks. The saved don’t consider anyone Christian who aren’t born again, no matter how loud they yell halleluiah. Born again don’t care about fixing the worlds problems. The Lord does battle for us.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If I were harsh I’d point out that historically you are neither a Christian nor a thinker; but I am not harsh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Ok, that’s nice.
So what is your definition of a Christian? You lament Christians aren’t helping out. Who are Christians, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Christians are those who believe in the Creed.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
A creed. Well, that’s a start. Ive heard of some creed. I let Jesus worry about it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Who is Jesus? The Creed tells us.
LikeLike
Pingback: Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism | All Along the Watchtower