Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[thesometimesaint]

This idea is found in Nibley's book, Approaching Zion.

 

Here is one excerpt:

 

The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.  Longhairs, beards, necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock come and go, but Babylon is always there:  rich, respectable, immovable, with its granite walls and steel vaults, its bronze gates, its onyx trimmings and marble floor...

 

That isn't the particular passage I had in mind, but it is what I can scrape up from bits of it that I find online (my copy of the book is at home where I presently am not).  If you read the whole book, Nibley pretty much says it as I have stated in my original comment, as I recall. I'll see if I can find a more exact reference for you later.

 

I really think you'd enjoy Approaching Zion.

 

I've read Approaching Zion a couple of times. I don't remember as Nibley ever saying sexual sin was just a distraction, But I get the feeling that Nibley was frying a different kettle of fish.

[bdouglas]

I've read Approaching Zion a couple of times. I don't remember as Nibley ever saying sexual sin was just a distraction, But I get the feeling that Nibley was frying a different kettle of fish.

 

Read it again. He didn't use the word "distraction", he said it was a case of "switched villains". We've set up a dummy villain (sex) in place of the real villain (all of the things, or sins, that keep us from even getting close to the Zion ideal). He uses the example of a play, where at the beginning we are giving a dummy villain--the town drunk, for example, or the local bad boy. But the real villain, as the story progresses, turns out to be the respectable banker or mayor.

 

It has been a while since I read the book Approaching Zion but I think you will find this in either "What Is Zion?" or "We Will Still Weep For Zion". At the time I read it he seemed to me dead-on in his analysis, and many years later he still does.

[BCSpace]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have "corporations" but I do see a problem with corporate structures that support inequality among all the employees. 

 

 

Considering that the Church's doctrine on equality is that everyone's just wants and needs are equally valid, I don't see 'corporations' intrinsically supporting inequality of any kind in any doctrinal sense.

 

For some reason somebody has decided that instead of paying every employee the same wage for an 8-hour day some employees should be paid higher wages than others even though every employee contributues to making the corporation successful.

 

Not everyone's work is equally valuable nor is everyone equally willing to serve in any position.  Virtually everyone could do the work of a janitor though not everyone is willing to.  But only those with certain experience or education could serve as a software engineer so that work contributes more value to the finished product or service.

 

Under the LoC, people are given stewardships which are private property and those can be improved or reduced depending on how much a person is willing to invest in it such as more work or training or education etc.  It's the same thing.

[Stone holm]

Read it again. He didn't use the word "distraction", he said it was a case of "switched villains". We've set up a dummy villain (sex) in place of the real villain (all of the things, or sins, that keep us from even getting close to the Zion ideal). He uses the example of a play, where at the beginning we are giving a dummy villain--the town drunk, for example, or the local bad boy. But the real villain, as the story progresses, turns out to be the respectable banker or mayor.

 

It has been a while since I read the book Approaching Zion but I think you will find this in either "What Is Zion?" or "We Will Still Weep For Zion". At the time I read it he seemed to me dead-on in his analysis, and many years later he still does.

In some ways it reminds me of what has happened in many of our municipal police systems, it's difficult and frustrating work to track down and apprehend thieves, etc. so we issue them radar guns and they spend their time passing out speeding tickets. It makes it appear that they are doing their jobs. Criticizing businessmen is not something that wins you friends in high places, at least those on Earth. We tend to admire people like Sis Theresa, Ghandi, and Sweitser more after they are dead.

[bdouglas]

I looked back through some old diary entries and found this. I wrote it when I was a young high councilman and as such used to sit in and vote on church courts. At the time I was reading and much enjoying Hugh Nibley. (I have edited what I then wrote for clarity.)

 

 

The church hasn't always obsessed over sexual sin in the way it does today. In my opinion, church leadership only began to do so AFTER they gave up on the Zion ideal. According to Hugh Nibley in Approaching Zion (in one of the essays in that book), it's a case of "switched villains". In other words, the church left off going after the real villain and set up a dummy villain in his place.

 

In my opinion, he is absolutely correct. The people who run foul of the church's ban on pre-marital, extra-marital, (etc., etc.) sex are in almost all cases not deliberate, willful, scheming sinners, rather they:

 

- Are trapped in dysfunctional or non-functioning marriages

- Suffer from low-self worth

- Are professionally or vocationally unfulfilled; in other words they can't find their "place"

- They suffer from some form of mental illness;

- They were sexualized at a young age, i.e., they were victims of sex abuse

 

The list could go on an on. Such people fall of the wagon of sexual chastity unwillingly and despite their best efforts to keep their appetites "within the bounds the Lord has set", and then we haul them into church courts where they are further humiliated and shamed, which simply leads to more transgression. Note here that I used the word "transgression" instead of "sin", because that is what I think it is in most cases. Sin is deliberate, scheming, willful, whereas most of the sexual sin happening in the church today is due to weakness. So in effect we in the church are disciplining (disfellowshipping, x-ing) members for weakness, not sin.

 

And all of this while the real villain walks free, insinuating himself into the church at all levels.

 

Note: I am aware that since the time I wrote this letter the church no longer routinely holds disciplinary councils for sexual sin. Or at least this is what I've heard.

[Stone holm]

Considering that the Church's doctrine on equality is that everyone's just wants and needs are equally valid, I don't see 'corporations' intrinsically supporting inequality of any kind in any doctrinal sense.

 

 

Not everyone's work is equally valuable nor is everyone equally willing to serve in any position.  Virtually everyone could do the work of a janitor though not everyone is willing to.  But only those with certain experience or education could serve as a software engineer so that work contributes more value to the finished product or service.

 

Under the LoC, people are given stewardships which are private property and those can be improved or reduced depending on how much a person is willing to invest in it such as more work or training or education etc.  It's the same thing.

Or we could reward economically those who have the most disagreeable jobs, so under that scenario we would pay the corporate executives rather less than what is paid to those who empty bedpans or haul out the garbage. Actually, except for some professional athletes and some computer programmers, wealth is not really distributed according to how valuable a persons performance is. Once wealth becomes over concentrated, that sort of becomes the exception rather than the rule.

[Stone holm]

I looked back through some old diary entries and found this. I wrote it when I was a young high councilman and as such used to sit in and vote on church courts. At the time I was reading and much enjoying Hugh Nibley. (I have edited what I then wrote for clarity.)

 

 

Note: I am aware that since the time I wrote this letter the church no longer routinely holds disciplinary councils for sexual sin. Or at least this is what I've heard.

Depends, but am fairly sure that disciplinary councils are predominately held over sexual sins. Sexual sins tend to be more black and white, rather than say greed or worshipping Mammon. I am not faulting holding such disciplinary councils as sexual sin is something that needs to be dealt with on an individual level. It's the near absence of questioning systemic economic issues which is troubling, since they are at the causation level. Pres Kimball questioned our priorities, but we heard very little about that while the Church was conducting its war on SSM.

[thesometimesaint]

Or we could reward economically those who have the most disagreeable jobs, so under that scenario we would pay the corporate executives rather less than what is paid to those who empty bedpans or haul out the garbage. Actually, except for some professional athletes and some computer programmers, wealth is not really distributed according to how valuable a persons performance is. Once wealth becomes over concentrated, that sort of becomes the exception rather than the rule.

 

The best way to become rich in money is to have parents rich in money. We are becoming a society of less social mobility and more of concentrated wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

 

Plutarch had a bit to say about that “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections.  Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”

[Stone holm]

The best way to become rich in money is to have parents rich in money. We are becoming a society of less social mobility and more of concentrated wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

 

Plutarch had a bit to say about that “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections.  Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”

I suspect that distributism most accurately reflects my economic beliefs. I strongly believe in a human scale economic system which is family based. In such a system you Havel recognize that parents want to pass on some of the benefits they have accrued, but that desire has to be tempered somewhat in order to avoid over concentration of wealth. Wealth should primarily be dependent upon activity, not upon passive income from accumulated wealth. So those enterprises requiring considerable capital should be handled by cooperatives, and those which can be handled via less capital should be handled by small family operations. Necessary infrastructure and essentials such as healthcare are most appropriately handled by the government or not for profits.

[Tacenda]

I looked back through some old diary entries and found this. I wrote it when I was a young high councilman and as such used to sit in and vote on church courts. At the time I was reading and much enjoying Hugh Nibley. (I have edited what I then wrote for clarity.)

Note: I am aware that since the time I wrote this letter the church no longer routinely holds disciplinary councils for sexual sin. Or at least this is what I've heard.

Thanks for sharing.. very Christlike journal entry! ETA: I'm slow, who is the real villian? Edited December 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect that distributism most accurately reflects my economic beliefs. I strongly believe in a human scale economic system which is family based. In such a system you Havel recognize that parents want to pass on some of the benefits they have accrued, but that desire has to be tempered somewhat in order to avoid over concentration of wealth. Wealth should primarily be dependent upon activity, not upon passive income from accumulated wealth. So those enterprises requiring considerable capital should be handled by cooperatives, and those which can be handled via less capital should be handled by small family operations. Necessary infrastructure and essentials such as healthcare are most appropriately handled by the government or not for profits.

 

I believe in a mixed economy.

 

That governments have their role in making sure that they do what the individual can not do for themselves. I can't individually raise an army, or enforce all the laws, and rules that are required of a modern day secular state. That if I build a company and it make lots of money. Good for me, and may God bless. But I must never forget that I didn't/can't do it all by myself. That I owe not only my employees fair and just compensation. That I pay a greater amount to the less blessed. That I owe the greater society too, to pay my taxes to help ensure that others have the same opportunities that I do.

 

That churches religions, and other social welfare organizations have their place at the table. But that they should never demand belief in return for aid. That I too truly to be that Good Samaritan.

[Stone holm]

I believe in a mixed economy.

 

That governments have their role in making sure that they do what the individual can not do for themselves. I can't individually raise an army, or enforce all the laws, and rules that are required of a modern day secular state. That if I build a company and it make lots of money. Good for me, and may God bless. But I must never forget that I didn't/can't do it all by myself. That I owe not only my employees fair and just compensation. That I pay a greater amount to the less blessed. That I owe the greater society too, to pay my taxes to help ensure that others have the same opportunities that I do.

 

That churches religions, and other social welfare organizations have their place at the table. But that they should never demand belief in return for aid. That I too truly to be that Good Samaritan.

As a kid with a family who owned a family business, the employees were like an extension of the family. If the business wasn't making money, you dipped into your savings in order to avoid laying people off.

[pmccombs1]

I've read Approaching Zion a couple of times. I don't remember as Nibley ever saying sexual sin was just a distraction, But I get the feeling that Nibley was frying a different kettle of fish.

 

No, I don't think he said that sex is a distraction per se, only that Babylon is about economy before it is about sex. I do recall that Nibley criticizes the Christian fixation with sex in a couple of essays/lectures. 

[The Nehor]

The development of large corporations is decided anti-family because unlike family owned businesses, family members are more likely to be discouraged from employment in the same corporation especially at management levels, the distance between the ultimate policy makers and the employees encourages atomistic attitudes which tend to view labor as a commodity (dehumanizes the workforce), corporations are amoral entities since there morals are put in place solely by legislation which is the only restraint upon their fiduciary duty to maximize profits for their shareholders.  So yes because they tend to destroy the middle-economy and community cohesiveness, yes they are part of the destruction of the middle-class family -- the result is a decline in sexual morality as the middle-class has always set the standard and community cohesiveness enforced it better than morality legislation.

 

Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility. -Ambrose Bierce

 

Another of my favorites from Bierce:

 

Conservative, noun: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

 

The problem with corporations is that it creates an entity whose only goal is profit (the polite word for satisfying greed). The owners of a corporation (stockholders) do not care about anything but profit because that is all they ever see. Any evil done along the way is rationalized as necessary and the stockholders are sufficiently distanced from any evil or exploitation that they do not have to see it and do not feel any responsibility for it. A small business owner employing people at starvation wages has to see the pain. A stockholder or CEO generally do not.

 

Add to that the corporations sucking on government welfare via their underpaid employees and things get ugly. The biggest benefactor of food stamps and welfare in America is Wal-Mart. If it was not for government subsidized food, housing, and healthcare their stores would be filled with underfed, unrested, miserable, and disease-ridden employees. By that I mean worse then they are now obviously.

[Stone holm]

Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility. -Ambrose Bierce

 

Another of my favorites from Bierce:

 

Conservative, noun: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

 

The problem with corporations is that it creates an entity whose only goal is profit (the polite word for satisfying greed). The owners of a corporation (stockholders) do not care about anything but profit because that is all they ever see. Any evil done along the way is rationalized as necessary and the stockholders are sufficiently distanced from any evil or exploitation that they do not have to see it and do not feel any responsibility for it. A small business owner employing people at starvation wages has to see the pain. A stockholder or CEO generally do not.

 

Add to that the corporations sucking on government welfare via their underpaid employees and things get ugly. The biggest benefactor of food stamps and welfare in America is Wal-Mart. If it was not for government subsidized food, housing, and healthcare their stores would be filled with underfed, unrested, miserable, and disease-ridden employees. By that I mean worse then they are now obviously.

Yeah, I used to be a little uneasy with the minimum wage, but today we picked up a hitchhiker on the wat to church, as we got a foot of snow last night and it was bitter cold out . Turns out she was a worker at McDonalds walking to work. I asked how she liked their new building she said it was okay, but they over hired and cut everyone's hours back, so she was only getting 10 hours this week. That would mean, if that was her only job, she made less than $80.00 the week before Christmas. Merry Christmas.

[thesometimesaint]

As a kid with a family who owned a family business, the employees were like an extension of the family. If the business wasn't making money, you dipped into your savings in order to avoid laying people off.

 

I was the COO of a medium sized company for a while. If you are loosing money you still go bankrupt. Then no one has a job. You can't fire family. They will always be your family. But if you're the boss be the boss. You have to be friendly, and you're not out to make enemies,. But you're not their buddy and they're there to do a job. If they can't, after sufficient training or won't, after repeated counseling, do their job. You have to let them go find another more appropriate line of work. Fortunately there was only one employee that I had to ask not to come back.

[Vance]

Without getting political. The job of the government is to coerce you into buying things. So the cost of your irresponsibility is not born by me.

The only reason the cost of my irresponsibility is forced upon you is because of governments unconstitutional intrusion into our lives.

No one, EVER should be coerced/extorted to pay for the irresponsibility of others. It is Governments OVER REACH that make it so.

So eat it socialists, it is a problem of your own making.

[Stone holm]

I was the COO of a medium sized company for a while. If you are loosing money you still go bankrupt. Then no one has a job. You can't fire family. They will always be your family. But if you're the boss be the boss. You have to be friendly, and you're not out to make enemies,. But you're not their buddy and they're there to do a job. If they can't, after sufficient training or won't, after repeated counseling, do their job. You have to let them go find another more appropriate line of work. Fortunately there was only one employee that I had to ask not to come back.

Yeah, I think you summed it up, in I'm not your buddy. I wasn't actually talking about the incompetent or rebellious employee, but when there was a business down turn. I have particularly watched what happens in bank mergers. They always tell the employees and management that their jobs are not in danger. Then after the merger one the trust departments gets the axe, then the branch managers get axed and replaced by lower paid but smart tellers, then the loan officers get axed. It would be almost funny to watch if it weren't heartbreaking. Thing is that as the banks grow larger in assets, the branches just become localized deposit vacuums and the lending departments are out beating the bushes for large commercial loans, which results in small businesses having to finance their ventures on either their savings or credit cards. Residential lending becomes cookie cutter formula lending because the banks do not retain those small loans but sell them into the secondary market. It totally dehumanizes the business. A branch isn't profitable enough? Closed. "So sorry it's just business."

[thesometimesaint]

The only reason the cost of my irresponsibility is forced upon you is because of governments unconstitutional intrusion into our lives.

No one, EVER should be coerced/extorted to pay for the irresponsibility of others. It is Governments OVER REACH that make it so.

So eat it socialists, it is a problem of your own making.

 

That may be your religious beliefs, but the US Constitution mandates that governments intrude into our lives. IE; Why the heck do you think we have traffic laws, and the taxes collected to enforce them.

 

So eat it Ayn Rand acolyte, it is a problem of you own making.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, I think you summed it up, in I'm not your buddy. I wasn't actually talking about the incompetent or rebellious employee, but when there was a business down turn. I have particularly watched what happens in bank mergers. They always tell the employees and management that their jobs are not in danger. Then after the merger one the trust departments gets the axe, then the branch managers get axed and replaced by lower paid but smart tellers, then the loan officers get axed. It would be almost funny to watch if it weren't heartbreaking. Thing is that as the banks grow larger in assets, the branches just become localized deposit vacuums and the lending departments are out beating the bushes for large commercial loans, which results in small businesses having to finance their ventures on either their savings or credit cards. Residential lending becomes cookie cutter formula lending because the banks do not retain those small loans but sell them into the secondary market. It totally dehumanizes the business. A branch isn't profitable enough? Closed. "So sorry it's just business.

 

I do hope you are my buddy.

 

Don't get me wrong I was only talking about the incompetent and/or rebellious employee.

 

Our present day business model of ever increasing profit margins and quarterly report bottom line economics really is the worst of both worlds. It is a downwards death spiral for most individuals and businesses alike.

 

Ps;

Edited December 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

That may be your religious beliefs, but the US Constitution mandates that governments intrude into our lives.

FALSE!

The US Constitution LIMITS federal government intrusion into our lives.

IE; Why the heck do you think we have traffic laws,

Prima facie evidence that you don't understand the Constitution.

So eat it Ayn Rand acolyte, it is a problem of you own making.

Nope! The problem started with the early 20th century progressives fight to destroy the principles in the Constitution. Resulting with Federal Governments unrighteous intrusion into our personal lives.

So eat it socialists, you will reap what you have sown, and it won't be pretty. Unfortunately the rest of us will also suffer for your foolishness.

PS

I noticed that you didn't (can't ) refute what I posted.

The fact remains, you only have to pay for the irresponsibility of others BECAUSE of government intrusion/coercion/extortion.

So, eat it socialists and stop your whining.

[california boy]

FALSE!

The US Constitution LIMITS federal government intrusion into our lives.

Prima facie evidence that you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope! The problem started with the early 20th century progressives fight to destroy the principles in the Constitution. Resulting with Federal Governments unrighteous intrusion into our personal lives.

So eat it socialists, you will reap what you have sown, and it won't be pretty. Unfortunately the rest of us will also suffer for your foolishness.

PS

I noticed that you didn't (can't ) refute what I posted.

The fact remains, you only have to pay for the irresponsibility of others BECAUSE of government intrusion/coercion/extortion.

So, eat it socialists and stop your whining.

You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled that according to the constitution the government DOES have the right to pass laws that intrude into your life.  You also might note that one of the conservative judges wrote the majority opinion.  So for your statement to work, you have to believe that you know and understand more about the constitution than the Supreme Court justices.  But I am sure you do hold such a belief.  I guess we will be able to see how narcissistic you are by your answer.

 

I am not sure what you are asking others to eat, so I will just leave it at that.

 

You're out of the thread. 

[thesometimesaint]

FALSE!

The US Constitution LIMITS federal government intrusion into our lives.

Prima facie evidence that you don't understand the Constitution.

Nope! The problem started with the early 20th century progressives fight to destroy the principles in the Constitution. Resulting with Federal Governments unrighteous intrusion into our personal lives.

So eat it socialists, you will reap what you have sown, and it won't be pretty. Unfortunately the rest of us will also suffer for your foolishness.

PS

I noticed that you didn't (can't ) refute what I posted.

The fact remains, you only have to pay for the irresponsibility of others BECAUSE of government intrusion/coercion/extortion.

So, eat it socialists and stop your whining.

 

No it doesn't. See Hamilton on the limits of the US Constitution. IE; Two cars meet at the same time at the same uncontrolled intersection, both have the right of way. One has to yield or the results are not pleasant. That is the reason for government, and an expansive view of meeting the current needs of the current population. Exactly what the Founders wanted.

 

I understand it a whole lot better than you do. That you look at Animal Farm and 1984 not as cautionary tales, but as how to manuals. Now that we've got the name calling out of the way let's deal with what the document actually says.

 

Oh you mean things like slavery, Jim Crow laws, women not having the vote, drinking alcohol, jailing people just for not having money, beating a confession out of suspects, treating citizens, at best, as second class citizens. Let's not forget the Robber Barons, the Great Depression, and all animals are created equal some are just more equal than others.

 

No I willingly pay for others so that when something bad happens to me they are willing to pay for me. It is a shared responsibility. If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I am amazed is how long this thread was allowed to stay open. It was political from the start.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That may be your religious beliefs, but the US Constitution mandates that governments intrude into our lives. IE; Why the heck do you think we have traffic laws, and the taxes collected to enforce them.

 

 

We disgree on many things, and this is certainly one of them. That is truely one strange definition of intrusion that I have ever heard. Also there is a difference in the Federal Government and the local State and county governments. States have rights that the fed don't IE traffic laws.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram