Abel the Righteous Entrepreneur

(Source: Acton PowerBlog)

Jordan Ballor of Acton writes:

Hazony points to some really important ideas in this short video. In many ways the culture war, so to speak, really comes down to a clash of worldviews about what work is and ought to be. For a narrative that sets the problem up the same way, but favors the “Leavers” over the “Takers,” see the work of Daniel Quinn, particularly his novelIshmael.

I’m looking forward to checking out Hazony’s book, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.

I agree, the book sounds interesting and I’m looking forward to reading it (someday!).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Greed is Wrong, But What About Wealth Itself?

After Liturgy on Sunday I had a brief but interesting conversation with two people about the pursuit of wealth.

Our conversation began with a question: Is it morally wrong to pursue wealth? The question was asked because both of my conversation partners had heard from different priests that in fact, yes, the pursuit of wealth is wrong. Christians especially, we are frequently told, should not seek to become wealthy but focus our lives on more noble goals.  On the one hand I agree with this. Wealth is not an end in itself and to make becoming wealthy the sole, or even central, goal of one’s life is not compatible with a wholesome human life much less the Gospel.

While granting that working to become wealthy simply for the sake of becoming wealthy is immoral, does this mean that is it morally wrong to pursue wealth? In other words, it is sinful to want—and so to work to become—wealthy? What I said on Sunday, is that it is not wrong to be or want to become wealthy. Why do I say this? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

The Source of Moral Goodness in Society

Quote

(Public Discourse)

The legal institutions of a democratic and capitalist society are not designed to give people what is good and prevent them from getting what is bad; they are designed to give people what they want and not give them what they don’t want. For this reason, some people decry capitalism and democracy as amoral. Such views are misguided. In a democratic and capitalist society, there is a certain division of labor: it is up to the people themselves to become moral individuals with moral desires, while the political and economic institutions of the society implement the individuals’ aggregated desires. In any alternative system, there are institutions not accountable to the people and powerful enough to impose their will (really the will of the individuals who control the institutions) on everyone who disagrees with them. The historical record of such institutions has been terrifying, which is the best argument in favor of democratic capitalism. It is true that, in such a system, it may be harder to be moral when your understanding of morality is different from the majority view, but at least you will not often be forced into doing what you think is wrong. You may be seduced, but you will not be coerced. Democratic capitalism is a moral system, but in this system the guardians of morality are not institutions but the people themselves. Thus we read in the Book of Wisdom, A large number of wise men is the safety of the world.

 

Robert T. Miller is a Professor of Law at Villanova University, and as of August 2012 he will be a Professor of Law and Sandler Faculty Fellow of Corporate Law at the University of Iowa.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Prager University: Earning Happiness — The Moral Promise of Free Enterprise

The words happiness and free enterprise don’t usually appear in the same sentence. But Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, shows that the two are intimately and profoundly connected. The free enterprise system not only creates wealth, it creates the best chance we have to achieve personal satisfaction.

h/t: Prager University

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

Defending the Moral Foundations of the Free Market

From David Paul Deveal comes this:

Greed is not good.” Thank God somebody is finally challenging the right-wing defenders of capitalism. Except that this line comes from Father Robert Sirico, an arch-defender of free-market economics.

One of the more tedious but necessary duties of Christians and Jews today is to repeatedly explain to atheists that we do not believe in the same God they do not believe in. No, we say, an inflated oriental despot in the sky is not at all what we mean by God. That would not be a God worth worshiping or defending. Similarly tedious but necessary is the duty of defenders of free-market capitalism to point out to friends on the left that, no, we do not believe in the Gospel of Gordon Gekko, either. The case for a free economy must be made, as Arthur Brooks has recently written in National Review, on the basis of its moral foundations and not simply on its more efficient resource allocation.

Read the rest here.

At Acton last week Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute explicitly argued for BOTH a moral defense of the free market AND a frank assessment and criticism of the deviations from its moral foundations. Profit and the creation of wealth are morally good not just an expedient good. But the goodness of wealth isn’t and mustn’t be divorced from what is good and best for the person, the family and society. Thus as Fr Siricio says greed is not good.

Wealth always should be in the service of love and so it is only in love that I can legitimately pursue profit and the creation of wealth.

As an example of this think about the demands of the Christian life.

Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

Property, Freedom, and Virtue

From Wesley Grant’s post Values and Social Capitalism:

Made in the image of God, our capacities for reason and virtue are also obligations to put them to use. We must be honest people who keep our word, engage with one another and meet the needs of those around us. That’s the only kind of economic stimulus package we need, because there is no prosperity without freedom, no freedom without virtue, and no virtue without relationship.

Read the rest here.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

More than Mere Economics

Regnery Publishing (2012), $27.95

Roman Catholic priest and founder of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, Fr Robert Sirico has done his readers a great service in laying out the moral foundations of the free market. Whether the reader agrees with him or not (and I do agree with him), his new book Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy helps clarify why the free market is not simply a useful but a morally good.   This is, as he points out at the beginning of the book, a daring argument to make.

Daring though the argument is, especially for a Catholic priest, it is also essential that it be made since for too many people (including business people), free market economic theory and policies are little more than a justification for greed.  While not denying the excesses of capitalism and real sins of capitalists, Fr Sirico wisely doesn’t allow sin to have the last word. Rather, and like St Augustine who inspired his own spiritual journey, he helps us see the goodness hidden beneath the distorting effects of moral failure.

Though irenic in tone, Sirico is unwilling to cede ground to those who imagine—wrongly in his view—that “socialism, liberalism, collectivism, and central planning” (p. 185) are morally superior and more effective in generating wealth. They aren’t and however noble the intention they are come up morally and practically short because they neither anthropological sound nor effective in caring for the material needs of the human person. The latter is especially the case when we turn to the needs of the most vulnerable among us. It is the free market that best fits the truth of the human person. And it is only the free market that has demonstrated the ability not only to lift the human person out of the poverty that was the almost universal lot of humanity even as late as 200 years ago.

But is the moral argument that is at the heart of the book’s.

Absence of a clear understanding of the moral foundations of the free market, policy disagreements turn into little more than shouting matches between those jockeying for their own advantage.  If we have any hope of transcending mere selfish self-interest we must understand the end—or moral goal—of our economic activity and so our public policies. To do this we must understand what it means to be human in full.

For the answer to what it means to be fully human, Sirico turns to the Judeo-Christian tradition. He does so because it is his “own tradition” and it is also the “tradition that I know best I know best, doctrinally and historically, and it goes without saying that I have a special appreciation for its social contributions and its theological truth claims (to which I’ve dedicated my life).” That said, he continues,

I do not mean to suggest that this tradition is the exclusive contributor to the development and maintenance of economic freedom. The trick, it seems to me, is to be able to identify on the one hand the unique and undeniable contribution that Judeo-Christian revelation and anthropology played in the institutional development of liberty in the world, and yet not to close the door on how the truths about human liberty can be understood—discernible as they are through the natural reason—in other philosophical or theological contexts. In the end, of course, that is not my task or competency. I leave that to others more qualified and knowledgeable about how this would play itself out in, for example, a Hindu or Islamic context” (p. 186).

In saying this, Fr Sirico offers a testimony to the true power of the ideas he defends. Freedom and liberty are only possible when we love of truth and live lives of virtue. Those persons and communities who live this way are truly free and, as a sign of their freedom, can be both fearless and generous in the face of even substantive differences.

More than a book on that defends the moral foundation of the free market, Fr Sirico offers us a primer on a life well lived. It just so happens that he does so while discussing economics.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 5.5/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

Welfare: Four Threats to the Church

An expansive secular system of government charity poses several threats to religious bodies, especially to those that become dependent on government subsidies. Here are four major threats to the health of charitable religious bodies today:

  1. The burgeoning welfare state hinders the church from fulfilling an essential part of its own mission as servant to the world, at times relegating the church to the role of a lobbyist and making it vulnerable to pressure from secularists in the political arena.
  2. To the extent that the church functions as just another lobbyist instead of clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and carrying out the other traditional acts of mercy as it has for 2000 years, it loses a rich source of its own spiritual nourishment—proximity to “Christ in a distressing dis-guise.”
  3. When the church becomes dependent on secular governments that are increasingly hostile to religion, many of the agencies operated by religiously affiliated institutions lose their moral rudder and cease to have a moral impact that can ameliorate the underlying moral and spiritual causes of economic poverty.
  4. When people realize that they can rely on the state to meet human needs, a society’s moral core is eroded as even Christians’ incentive to personally help others diminishes and they cease to see themselves as personal, moral actors on behalf of those in need.

R. Sirico (2012), Defending the Free Market, p. 129.

Again, discuss.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 6.4/10 (5 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

Video: The False Promise of Green Energy

For PowerBlog readers, we’re posting the video from Andrew Morriss’ April 26 Acton Lecture Series talk in Grand Rapids, Mich., on “The False Promise of Green Energy.” Here’s the lecture description: “Green energy advocates claim that transforming America to an economy based on wind, solar, and biofuels will produce jobs for Americans, benefits for the environment, and restore American industry. Prof. Andrew Morriss, co-author of The False Promise of Green Energy (Cato, 2011), shows that these claims are based on unrealistic assumptions, poorly thought out models, and bad data. Rather than leading us to an eco-utopia, he argues that current green energy programs are crony capitalism that impoverishes American consumers and destroys American jobs.”

Morriss, an Orthodox Christian, begins with a quote from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the Istanbul, Turkey-based hierarch. Bartholomew said this in response to the March 2011 tsunami in Japan and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that followed:

Our Creators granted us the gifts of the sun, wind, water and ocean, all of which may safely and sufficiently provide energy. Ecologically-friendly science and technology has discovered ways and means of producing sustainable forms of energy for our ecosystem. Therefore, we ask: Why do we persist in adopting such dangerous sources of energy?

“The Ecumenical Patriarch and I don’t see eye to eye on this,” Morriss said. “I think he’s asking the wrong questions.”

Also see the PowerBlog post “Green Patriarch: No Nukes.”

In his book, Morriss and his co-authors warn that “the concrete results of following [green energy] policies will be a decline in living standards around the globe, including for the world’s poorest; changes in lifestyle that Americans do not want; and a weakening of the technological progress that market forces have delivered, preventing us from finding real solutions to the real problems we face.” Many of those lifestyle changes will come from suddenly spending far more on energy than we’d like. Green technologies mean diverting production from cheap sources, such as coal and oil, to more expensive, highly subsidized ones, like wind and solar. These price spikes won’t be limited to our electricity bills either, the authors argue. “Anything that increases the price of energy will also increase the price of goods that use energy indirectly.”

The better solution to improving America’s energy economy, the book shows, is to let the market work by putting power in the hands of consumers. But “many environmental pressure groups don’t want to leave conservation to individuals, preferring government mandates to change energy use.” In other words, green-job proponents know they’re pushing a bad product. Rather than allow the market to expose the bad economics of green energy, they’d use the power of government to force expensive and unnecessary transformation.

Morriss is also an editor of the forthcoming Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson (Cato, September 2012) with Roger Meiners and Pierre Desroches. The blurb for the Carson book notes that she got a lot wrong:

Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement when published 50 years ago, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had a profound impact on our society. As an iconic work, the book has often been shielded from critical inquiry, but this landmark anniversary provides an excellent opportunity to reassess its legacy and influence. In Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson a team of national experts explores the book’s historical context, the science it was built on, and the policy consequences of its core ideas. The conclusion makes it abundantly clear that the legacy of Silent Spring is highly problematic. While the book provided some clear benefits, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance. Despite her reputation as a careful writer widely praised for building her arguments on science and facts, Carson’s best-seller contained significant errors and sins of omission. Much of what was presented as certainty then was slanted, and today we know much of it is simply wrong.

Morriss is the D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene Angelich Jones Chairholder of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. He is the author or coauthor of more than 60 book chapters, scholarly articles, and books. He is affiliated with a number of think tanks doing public policy work, including the Property & Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In addition, he is a Research Fellow at the New York University Center for Labor and Employment Law. He is chair of the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. His scholarship focuses on regulatory issues involving environmental, energy, and offshore financial centers. Over the past ten years he has regularly taught and lectured in China, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, and Nepal.

Morriss earned an A.B. from Princeton University and a J.D., as well as an M.A. in Public Affairs, from the University of Texas at Austin. He received a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After law school, Morriss clerked for U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders in the Northern District of Texas and worked for two years at Texas Rural Legal Aid in Hereford and Plainview, Texas.

He was formerly the H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law & Professor of Business at the University of Illinois College of Law and the Galen J. Roush Profesor of Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Source; Acton Institute PowerBlog

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 8.2/10 (5 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

Jeremy Lin and the Political Economy of Superstars – Kenneth Rogoff – Project Syndicate

Quote

What amazes me is the public’s blasé acceptance of the salaries of sports stars, compared to its low regard for superstars in business and finance. Half of all NBA players’ annual salaries exceed $2 million, more than five times the threshold for the top 1% of household incomes in the United States. Because long-time superstars like Kobe Bryant earn upwards of $25 million a year, the average annual NBA salary is more than $5 million. Indeed, Lin’s salary, at $800,000, is the NBA’s “minimum wage” for a second-season player. Presumably, Lin will soon be earning much more, and fans will applaud.Yet many of these same fans would almost surely argue that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, whose median compensation is around $10 million, are ridiculously overpaid. If a star basketball player reacts a split-second faster than his competitors, no one has a problem with his earning more for every game than five factory workers do in a year. But if, say, a financial trader or a corporate executive is paid a fortune for being a shade faster than competitors, the public suspects that he or she is undeserving or, worse, a thief.

via Jeremy Lin and the Political Economy of Superstars – Kenneth Rogoff – Project Syndicate.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)