Michael Moore, as part of his anti-capitalism campaign, is sending around an e-mail asking if Jesus were alive today, would he be a capitalist, or would he be opposed to capitalism? Here's my response:
Name an economic system that would be better for the poor than capitalism. Seriously.
Sure, it creates big gaps between rich and poor, but would Jesus want you comparing your life's worth to the life of your neighbor? The poor in America have a better standard of living than the poor in most non-capitalist countries, with more opportunities for social mobility as well. A poor person in capitalist America is better off than both a poor person pretty much anywhere in non-capitalist Africa and a poor person anywhere in the world during the time of Jesus. Heck, they're better off than most rich people in both those situations (certainly most middle-class people). Better access to healthcare, education, resources, the tools for self-improvement, travel opportunities, social and socioeconomic advancement and development...
And to those who make the argument that those are trappings of modern society and not of capitalism itself, which economies invented all that stuff? Communist and socialist countries lagged behind the societies which lavishly rewarded those who brought tremendous value to those societies. Not everyone's a genius and a saint like Norman Borlaug. We're human, by and large, and respond to incentive structures. Life saving medicine is invented by pharmaceutical companies who expect patents on their $50 pills which save the taker a $10,000 operation (which itself was once not that big a price to pay for 20 more years on Earth). The best way to make money in a well-run capitalist economy is to provide things people want, that make their lives better. Sure, we've got regulatory gaps, but to abandon the system entirely? I don't buy it.
To those who say "OK, fine, capitalism was good, but now it's run its course. Let's go another direction," I reply: "What about tomorrow's poor?" Do we want to freeze the state of poverty, redistribute the wealth, and squelch innovation? Crawl along in a dangerous world not giving people strong incentives to better everyone? Capitalism was worse a hundred years ago than it is now...the current crisis highlighted some steps back, but we're still far ahead of where we were. We're making progress within capitalism, and the capitalists are making more progress than others.
What's the alternative? Non-capitalist countries are quickly adopting capitalist activities and policies, but the reverse isn't happening. Even successful "socialist" countries are really capitalist countries with socialism-inspired domestic policies. And they wouldn't be where they are today without the help of capitalist friends and trading partners.
Yes, we need a better safety net. Yes, we need to regulate markets and correct for market failures. But the dirty little secret is America won't really fail because capitalism will tumble...the Visigoths at our gate are not socialists, communists, or anything else. They're capitalists, who will beat us at our own game, the only game in town among superpowers, nations on the rise, and great societies. They'll better regulate, better incentivize, better innovate, better create...solar panels are coming from China and Germany; wireless innovations are coming from developing nations without legacy systems and inflexible out-of-date policies like India and Israel; we're being out-manufactured by places that can do it cheaply--and in doing so take the poor out of the streets and put them in bad jobs, but jobs nonetheless. Jobs where there were none before. And all these countries are coming around to capitalism.
Would Jesus be a capitalist? Would he find jobs and dignity for the poor? Would he help invent life-saving drugs or safer cars or cleaner energy? Would he sell software to help us make better decisions, and donate the money to a big foundation to level the educational playing field? Would he still walk around the countryside talking to people dozens at a time, or would he go with a book, a blog, a podcast, a TV segment, an Op-Ed? Almost 7 billion people, can't save them one at a time anymore.
He might not speculate in the derivatives market, because it's more or less a zero-sum game...but would he frown upon a farmer buying a weather derivative that pays off in case of an extra-dry season, giving him enough money to get by and replant next season? Would he tell Merck to close up shop? Would he disapprove of accessing capital markets to raise funds to build a hospital? Darn right Jesus would be a capitalist were he alive today. Just like the rest of the Jews.
Showing posts with label religion and philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion and philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
My Scary Pope
OK, so I've been saying the current Pope is kind of a scary dude for a while now. Before it was just because he looked like someone out to get Harry Potter (pun intended...wait for it...). But now he's taken being scary to a whole new level, a real one.
According to MSNBC.com and CNN the channel, while in Africa the Pope had this to say about AIDS: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms." OK, that's true. I can see how an anti-condom kind of guy would spin it that way, maybe in his own defense, saying that his views aren't killing Africans so lay off. A little bit of a cop-out since condoms would save countless lives over there, but hey, he's not paid to care about that.
What's really frightening is that the Pope went ON to say that the distribution of condoms "increases the problem" of AIDS.
Some of you may remember previous instances of Catholic official denouncing the usage of condoms and saying that they cause AIDS. In fact, I blogged about it once. But this takes it to a whole new level.
We're talking about the most powerful religious figure in the world, head of a church representing roughly one-sixth the entire planet's population, and he's out there telling people that the distribution and use of condoms makes the AIDS epidemic WORSE.
I don't even know what to say about such an unconscionable action, a statement that will, in all likelihood, kill more people than I even know. It was one thing for him not to discipline the archbishop who said that condoms cause AIDS, but it's quite another to publicly agree that condoms are part of the problem.
Not knowing what to say, I turned to Jon Stewart for some wisdom:
"The Pope went on to say that smoking cures cancer, and if you're looking for a quick morning pick-me-up, try heroin." Sadly, the mock advice would actually have been LESS harmful (for a variety of reasons) than what the Pope actually said.
[Editor's Addendum: Barkeep, loyal Catholic, has brought up the only conceivable defense to the Pope's statement: more condoms means more casual sex means more AIDS. It's actually the first thing I thought of too. But after thinking about it, I'm 99.9% convinced it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Think of it this way:
A = Instances of Unprotected Sex Between Infected Individual and Non-Infected Individual
B = Probability of AIDS Infection From Unprotected Sex with Infected Individual
X = Instances of Protected Sex Between Infected Individual and Non-Infected Individual
Y = Probability of AIDS Infection From Protected Sex with Infected Individual
New Cases = A*B + X*Y
The argument is based on the fact that X will increase faster than A will decrease if condoms are distributed. I agree. But for the argument to work, however, the magnitude has to be such that it overcomes how much lower Y is than B. Plug any reasonable assumptions into the equation and do your own tests, it doesn't work at all. Especially in Africa, where poor education leads to VERY little hesitation to have casual sex with or without protection, and where women often have little ability to refuse to have sex with a husband who cheats on her regularly, meaning a smaller |dX/dA| than in America, where it's still surprisingly and depressingly low.]
According to MSNBC.com and CNN the channel, while in Africa the Pope had this to say about AIDS: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms." OK, that's true. I can see how an anti-condom kind of guy would spin it that way, maybe in his own defense, saying that his views aren't killing Africans so lay off. A little bit of a cop-out since condoms would save countless lives over there, but hey, he's not paid to care about that.
What's really frightening is that the Pope went ON to say that the distribution of condoms "increases the problem" of AIDS.
Some of you may remember previous instances of Catholic official denouncing the usage of condoms and saying that they cause AIDS. In fact, I blogged about it once. But this takes it to a whole new level.
We're talking about the most powerful religious figure in the world, head of a church representing roughly one-sixth the entire planet's population, and he's out there telling people that the distribution and use of condoms makes the AIDS epidemic WORSE.
I don't even know what to say about such an unconscionable action, a statement that will, in all likelihood, kill more people than I even know. It was one thing for him not to discipline the archbishop who said that condoms cause AIDS, but it's quite another to publicly agree that condoms are part of the problem.
Not knowing what to say, I turned to Jon Stewart for some wisdom:
"The Pope went on to say that smoking cures cancer, and if you're looking for a quick morning pick-me-up, try heroin." Sadly, the mock advice would actually have been LESS harmful (for a variety of reasons) than what the Pope actually said.
[Editor's Addendum: Barkeep, loyal Catholic, has brought up the only conceivable defense to the Pope's statement: more condoms means more casual sex means more AIDS. It's actually the first thing I thought of too. But after thinking about it, I'm 99.9% convinced it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Think of it this way:
A = Instances of Unprotected Sex Between Infected Individual and Non-Infected Individual
B = Probability of AIDS Infection From Unprotected Sex with Infected Individual
X = Instances of Protected Sex Between Infected Individual and Non-Infected Individual
Y = Probability of AIDS Infection From Protected Sex with Infected Individual
New Cases = A*B + X*Y
The argument is based on the fact that X will increase faster than A will decrease if condoms are distributed. I agree. But for the argument to work, however, the magnitude has to be such that it overcomes how much lower Y is than B. Plug any reasonable assumptions into the equation and do your own tests, it doesn't work at all. Especially in Africa, where poor education leads to VERY little hesitation to have casual sex with or without protection, and where women often have little ability to refuse to have sex with a husband who cheats on her regularly, meaning a smaller |dX/dA| than in America, where it's still surprisingly and depressingly low.]
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Abortion Question
Abortion is a tricky issue, and I'm not going to get into it in a lot of breadth here, but I wanted to ask a question: why is abortion of fetuses created through incest more acceptable than fetuses created by two unrelated persons? I very much understand exceptions carved out for when the mother's life is in danger; I find opposition to such abortions unconscionable. Even if the fetus is a human life, why force two to die when you could instead have only one death on your hands? Through inaction, you become twice the murderer.
Then after that, there's another tier of exceptions people cite, the "rape or incest." While I understand incest is not often consensual, I believe those cases would also fall under "rape." Rape I understand slightly less, but there is a choice argument to be made. A woman should bear less responsibility for a choice forced upon her than one she made willingly. If you think it's a human life though...let me ask you this, would killing an infant left on your doorstep be any better than killing a 2-month-old of your own genetic material?
But then there's incest, which is the subject of my question. Perhaps someone out there can explain this to me. If a child is created consensually out of incest, how can an otherwise pro-life person be OK with its destruction? How can someone who believes it to be a human life say its socially taboo origin warrants its destruction? We have more of a revulsion to the action that created it, which helps it slip by under the emotional radar, but logically, how is it any less of a human life? If you're pro-life, how is it any less a murder? The only difference I can think of is that it's much more likely to have genetic abnormalities and mental deficiencies. But if that's the difference, then how can someone think the following things: (A) A fetus is a human life, and killing it is murder (B) It is immoral to kill people with downs syndrome or other mental deficiencies and abnormalities (C) It is not immoral to kill a fetus who simply has a higher probability than normal of developing such aberrations.
The logic with rape to some extent, and to a much greater extent with incest, implies that even among many pro-life people, a fetus is given less than full-human status. It implies that it's on a gradient...more than just a part of a woman's body, but still not a full person. Maybe a 0.6, and a few circumstances regarding HOW it was created could push it down to 0.4 which rounds down? How does it work? How can someone believe with every fiber of their being that a fetus is a human life and be OK with abortion in the case of rape or incest? How is rape or incest the fetus's, how is it the BABY'S, fault?
[NOTE: I think the comments are interesting enough to warrant reading here, and please, participate if you have the urge. I'm not sure of my personal position on this issue, and I'm mainly arguing as devil's advocate (no horribly existential pun intended) both from and against the perspective of a pro-lifer to attempt to better understand a position I find contradictory.]
Then after that, there's another tier of exceptions people cite, the "rape or incest." While I understand incest is not often consensual, I believe those cases would also fall under "rape." Rape I understand slightly less, but there is a choice argument to be made. A woman should bear less responsibility for a choice forced upon her than one she made willingly. If you think it's a human life though...let me ask you this, would killing an infant left on your doorstep be any better than killing a 2-month-old of your own genetic material?
But then there's incest, which is the subject of my question. Perhaps someone out there can explain this to me. If a child is created consensually out of incest, how can an otherwise pro-life person be OK with its destruction? How can someone who believes it to be a human life say its socially taboo origin warrants its destruction? We have more of a revulsion to the action that created it, which helps it slip by under the emotional radar, but logically, how is it any less of a human life? If you're pro-life, how is it any less a murder? The only difference I can think of is that it's much more likely to have genetic abnormalities and mental deficiencies. But if that's the difference, then how can someone think the following things: (A) A fetus is a human life, and killing it is murder (B) It is immoral to kill people with downs syndrome or other mental deficiencies and abnormalities (C) It is not immoral to kill a fetus who simply has a higher probability than normal of developing such aberrations.
The logic with rape to some extent, and to a much greater extent with incest, implies that even among many pro-life people, a fetus is given less than full-human status. It implies that it's on a gradient...more than just a part of a woman's body, but still not a full person. Maybe a 0.6, and a few circumstances regarding HOW it was created could push it down to 0.4 which rounds down? How does it work? How can someone believe with every fiber of their being that a fetus is a human life and be OK with abortion in the case of rape or incest? How is rape or incest the fetus's, how is it the BABY'S, fault?
[NOTE: I think the comments are interesting enough to warrant reading here, and please, participate if you have the urge. I'm not sure of my personal position on this issue, and I'm mainly arguing as devil's advocate (no horribly existential pun intended) both from and against the perspective of a pro-lifer to attempt to better understand a position I find contradictory.]
Monday, September 08, 2008
Courtesy of Sergeant Trouser:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D932NC6O1&show_article=1
Words fail me. If you can think of any, feel free to post them in reply.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D932NC6O1&show_article=1
Words fail me. If you can think of any, feel free to post them in reply.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
My Path Not Taken
It's amazing how much stuff goes on in the world of which we're completely unaware. Apparently I completely missed Miss Teen USA, several fashion shows, and Hempfest 2008 (all in the past week or so). Don't know how that last one slipped by my radar.
I feel like there's enough stuff out there for several completely separate planets full of people, and if you divided it up just right, not many people would miss any of the stuff on any of the other planets. Globalization may work economically, and I may put Hempfest 2009 on my Google Calendar, but at a certain level we're all very local, self-isolating creatures who can't handle a world that's too big.
This is all my way of wondering how people can live within 5 minutes (walking) from 100 restaurants, only try 25 of them, and then return to the 10 they like. In my mind, if I did that, it means there's 30 more restaurants out there I'd like and I need to go find them. But I realize I have the same human tendency, it just manifests itself in different ways. I think we've all got it somehow.
Some of us do it with academic/intellectual pursuits. Some of us settle in our jobs. Some of us (like me) don't feel the need to live in 10 different cities and countries before they know where they like being. We don't have unlimited resources, so it makes sense we settle on the things that aren't as important (for example, I don't have time to figure out how to optimize a credit card reward system--I know I can do better, but I don't care). But how restrictive is too restrictive? How can we tell when we're making a good choice, so we can focus on important things? How can we tell when we're living life sub-optimally? And is it worth the time it would take to become better at telling the difference?
I feel like there's enough stuff out there for several completely separate planets full of people, and if you divided it up just right, not many people would miss any of the stuff on any of the other planets. Globalization may work economically, and I may put Hempfest 2009 on my Google Calendar, but at a certain level we're all very local, self-isolating creatures who can't handle a world that's too big.
This is all my way of wondering how people can live within 5 minutes (walking) from 100 restaurants, only try 25 of them, and then return to the 10 they like. In my mind, if I did that, it means there's 30 more restaurants out there I'd like and I need to go find them. But I realize I have the same human tendency, it just manifests itself in different ways. I think we've all got it somehow.
Some of us do it with academic/intellectual pursuits. Some of us settle in our jobs. Some of us (like me) don't feel the need to live in 10 different cities and countries before they know where they like being. We don't have unlimited resources, so it makes sense we settle on the things that aren't as important (for example, I don't have time to figure out how to optimize a credit card reward system--I know I can do better, but I don't care). But how restrictive is too restrictive? How can we tell when we're making a good choice, so we can focus on important things? How can we tell when we're living life sub-optimally? And is it worth the time it would take to become better at telling the difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
