velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2011-04-24 07:27 pm
velvetpage) wrote2011-04-24 07:27 pm
Entry tags:
Economics and religion
I was linked in another forum to a roundtable discussion on God and Government. For American viewers, go here. For non-Americans, here it is. You'll need to watch one piece at a time. I watched only the roundtable discussion, so my comments are only for that.
One of the benefits of a very slow-loading connection is that I get to listen to this as soundbites, which means I can flip back and forth between windows and comment on things as it plays.
Dr. Land’s position of deficit as generational theft doesn’t ring as true to me as it might because I suspect he’s not nearly as down on military spending to rob Iraq of its current and future infrastructure and generations. I hope I’m doing him a disservice. Beyond that, Rev. Sharpton brought up the next point I would have brought up: the rich aren’t paying their share of taxes. I would add that the whole debate is being framed in the context of trickle-down economics, i.e. tax breaks for the rich create jobs for the poor. So far, nobody has challenged that idea of economics, though they should, because the fact is it doesn’t work; tax cuts for the rich and their corporations lead to more money in the offshore accounts of rich people, not more jobs. We’ll see if it gets challenged later, or supported. (ETA: it didn't get challenged.)
I like the reframing of the debate as not being about haves vs. have nots, but rather of wishing to pass down to our children the idea that Americans are all in this together. Talking about Jesus as an agent of mercy is good. And here they go, letting the most conservative person at the table frame the debate away from this point. I'm starting to think the biggest problem with liberals is that we're too polite.
Oh, good lord, really, Dr. Land? “India and China have alleviated far more poverty since they abandoned communism and socialism and adopted capitalism.” CAN WE SAY OVER-SIMPLIFICATION? Will anyone at that table be able and willing to talk about the quantity of West-destined goods produced in one of the world’s worst slums in Mumbai, by slum residents who don’t make enough from their labours to dramatically improve on the slums? And they all just let it pass with a comment that “nobody here is against capitalism.” Here’s a hint: socialist democracy is not a zero-sum game. You can have some socialism and still have a fundamentally capitalist society. Why are the liberals at the table letting him frame the economic debate so as to eliminate the very answer most Western democracies use to solve the problem they’re discussing?
And here’s where I get my biggest beef with Dr. Land: “We’re going to have to make distinctions between those who really need help and those who don’t.” America already has so much red tape attached to its help, so much proof to go through to prove that you need it, that proving you need it and continuing to receive it can easily take as much time as working a job. Furthermore, the idea of noblesse obligée, that the best people to decide who needs and deserves help are the people giving it, is fundamentally flawed. The people best able to determine what is needed are the people who need it, and if you give them ownership and support of that process, they’ll rise to the occasion. (This is a constructivist position developed as a teacher, but it applies here, too.) What he’s proposing is the exact opposite: a top-down model of help that is restrictive to the point of being punitive of poverty, that does not tailor its help to the situation hopefully being alleviated, but rather to the “moral choices” that led to that person being poor in the first place. He’s also down on socialism because this top-down type is the only kind that’s been tried, half-heartedly in the U.S., and he sees it as not working very well. He’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't have to be that way.
I’m intrigued by the fact that the only person to mention the areligious at all was the Muslim at the table. That’s very telling of the state of American Christianity.
One of the benefits of a very slow-loading connection is that I get to listen to this as soundbites, which means I can flip back and forth between windows and comment on things as it plays.
Dr. Land’s position of deficit as generational theft doesn’t ring as true to me as it might because I suspect he’s not nearly as down on military spending to rob Iraq of its current and future infrastructure and generations. I hope I’m doing him a disservice. Beyond that, Rev. Sharpton brought up the next point I would have brought up: the rich aren’t paying their share of taxes. I would add that the whole debate is being framed in the context of trickle-down economics, i.e. tax breaks for the rich create jobs for the poor. So far, nobody has challenged that idea of economics, though they should, because the fact is it doesn’t work; tax cuts for the rich and their corporations lead to more money in the offshore accounts of rich people, not more jobs. We’ll see if it gets challenged later, or supported. (ETA: it didn't get challenged.)
I like the reframing of the debate as not being about haves vs. have nots, but rather of wishing to pass down to our children the idea that Americans are all in this together. Talking about Jesus as an agent of mercy is good. And here they go, letting the most conservative person at the table frame the debate away from this point. I'm starting to think the biggest problem with liberals is that we're too polite.
Oh, good lord, really, Dr. Land? “India and China have alleviated far more poverty since they abandoned communism and socialism and adopted capitalism.” CAN WE SAY OVER-SIMPLIFICATION? Will anyone at that table be able and willing to talk about the quantity of West-destined goods produced in one of the world’s worst slums in Mumbai, by slum residents who don’t make enough from their labours to dramatically improve on the slums? And they all just let it pass with a comment that “nobody here is against capitalism.” Here’s a hint: socialist democracy is not a zero-sum game. You can have some socialism and still have a fundamentally capitalist society. Why are the liberals at the table letting him frame the economic debate so as to eliminate the very answer most Western democracies use to solve the problem they’re discussing?
And here’s where I get my biggest beef with Dr. Land: “We’re going to have to make distinctions between those who really need help and those who don’t.” America already has so much red tape attached to its help, so much proof to go through to prove that you need it, that proving you need it and continuing to receive it can easily take as much time as working a job. Furthermore, the idea of noblesse obligée, that the best people to decide who needs and deserves help are the people giving it, is fundamentally flawed. The people best able to determine what is needed are the people who need it, and if you give them ownership and support of that process, they’ll rise to the occasion. (This is a constructivist position developed as a teacher, but it applies here, too.) What he’s proposing is the exact opposite: a top-down model of help that is restrictive to the point of being punitive of poverty, that does not tailor its help to the situation hopefully being alleviated, but rather to the “moral choices” that led to that person being poor in the first place. He’s also down on socialism because this top-down type is the only kind that’s been tried, half-heartedly in the U.S., and he sees it as not working very well. He’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't have to be that way.
I’m intrigued by the fact that the only person to mention the areligious at all was the Muslim at the table. That’s very telling of the state of American Christianity.