I smell a Ronulan.
Thank goodness for Google- I thought you were making some kind of reference to Star Trek!
I have been talking this way since before Ron Paul was popular, but I do respect and admire the man.
What Ron Paul and his fans calls 'corporatism' (I think they mean corporationism) is a necessary development of Capitalism. Call it a perversion, fine, but it's still part of its natural historical evolution (on the path to Socialism/Communism... if a violent Fascist movement, the only kind that can, doesn't stop the red threat when it gets big enough).
There really is no such word as "corporationism" but is actually "corporatism" which is defined by Webster as: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
If you truly believe that capitalism always must lead to corporatism which leads to socialism/communism, then you propose what other alternative? Cut out the middle man and go straight to socialism/communism? Even in the agrarian community as set up by God for his people, he knew that due to their fallen nature they would make bad decisions and lose their farms for various reasons, opening the door to capitalistic visionaries. So, in short, we see capitalism as God's design for a humanly economic structure. Once again, the Bible clearly states that socialism is not God's design. While greedy and unscrupulous men do often twist capitalism to their benefit and others detriment, this does not mean that capitalism does not work, it indicates that we need to be all the more diligent in our business dealings.
Is there really a substantial difference between a retail job and a higher-paying job, though? Above both you have CEO's and other execs reaping the real rewards while (by way of) paying the great bulk of their employees -- those who actually do the work -- relative peanuts. The educated, skilled workers just get a few more peanuts out of the deal (again relative to what the proverbial Donald Trumps at the top are making, most of whom got to their positions via nepotism and cronyism). In the current economic system a 'high-paying job' and a 'low-paying job' aren't too disparate, when the bosses of both types of job-holder are living like royalty. They just want you to believe that there is a substantial difference; that way you will be content with your extra peanuts and not demand more of the fruit of your labor from them.
You bolster my argument magnificently here. There really is not substantial difference between the general laborers and the degreed laborers. As such, there is little wisdom in today's society and economy to sacrifice for the higher education. I do not denigrate anyone who commits to doing so- if they can get through it debt free. If they cannot perform the task without incurring debt, then they are violating God's word and really should reconsider. In my humble opinion
Again, you revert back to your logical fallacy of blaming the employer. If I am a business owner (I am) who has worked hard for what I have and to be where I am. If I had the vision to take my company to the level that it is, had the fortitude to risk everything to get it there, and worked my tail off for years without pay to see it all come to fruition, then why am I suddenly become evil when I hire someone for an agreed upon low wage, and expect him to do the hard labor while I occupy myself with the business of running and growing a business? Even if I make an obscene salary, it is my business, I have earned the money, and I did work without pay for many years.
In fact, referring once again to your example of Wal-mart: they always pay more than minimum wage! So, how is it that they are evil for paying the worker bees too low of a salary while they are sitting back getting fat off the labor of others?
---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
The apostles, in general, did not have higher education, nor did most of the early church fathers.
That is kind of a bad comparison. 2 millenia makes a bit of a difference there! Also Paul and Luke both would have had some level of High Education given their status as a doctor and pharisee. This is why their epistles read differently than John for example. But the CHurch in its catholicity has since the start of the universities emphesived the importance of higher education for at least the clergy.
Your argument actually proves the exact opposite of what you argue. First, you claim that 2000 years makes all the difference in the world, implying that higher education is now available when it wasn't back then. Then, you proceed to make the argument that Luke and Paul both received higher education. Certainly, if Luke and Paul were able to receive higher education, then it was available back then. And yet, none of the other apostles sought one, and Jesus in his earthly ministry did not encourage anyone to strive for one. And if higher education is essential for clergy, then why is it that in the Presbyterian church, the high clergy are allowing tings such as homosexuality when scripture clearly denounces such? Did that higher education that the PCUSA requires really help? I know many baptist clergy without higher education who have that one figured out.
---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------
I can see the utility, but not the practicality, given the way that current hiring practices are set up. Unless you're going into a trade or starting your own business, college is fairly practical in terms of getting your foot in the door. Now, if all you're doing is a business degree, it may be better to just find somewhere affordable. However, if you want to make connections, find better academics, and find contacts, it might be better to go for a private school---because while it's expensive, there's often money backing it.
And the point of my "public good" argument is to say that Public goods can have state support, particularly if they are inherently non-profit. Indeed, Adam Smith makes this very point in
The Wealth of Nations. [/quote]
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have state support for the "public good" without utilizing legalized plunder (aka- theft), the stealing of money from some to redistribute that wealth to others. That is not a Godly principle and is not a legitimate function of the state.
He's correct to call it Capitalism, which is defined as mostly private control of means of production. Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism.
Actually, as pointed out above, he is not correct to call it capitalism. Capitalism is private individuals, sometimes in the form of corporations, to provide a good or service that they perceive they have a market for at whatever price and whatever level of quality they feel the market will bear. Corporatism is where these corporations entice government to set up regulations, taxing, etc. to benefit them over the small capitalist. This in turn leads to a suppression of the free market and true market economics where one goes out of business or changes if they have a flawed business strategy.
However, there's a middle class: entrepreneurs and small investors. These are the little guys who are getting bought out in this economy. I'm currently writing from Lookout Mountain, where a bunch of these folks live: they're the people who own the businesses of small towns and cities, serve on the boards of charitable foundations, and train their kids to do the same. They are "the rich" but not the super-rich. They don't have offshore accounts and so they suffer with everyone else when depression hits. These are often your doctors, lawyers, and bankers.
While it is the small business owner and entrepreneur who gets hit hard in a depression, it is also true that, in a depression, the very skills that come through skilled trades are the ones that will become the most valuable. An automobile mechanic will have work repairing everyone's broken down vehicles if is willing to do a good job and charge a fair price because nobody knows how to repair their own vehicle anymore. The welder, the electrician, the plumber, etc. will all be able to survive a depression because their services will still be needed while the video game programmers and computer repairmen will be starving. There will also be a resurgence of black market medicine if the economy gets bad enough because people will not be able to afford to see the doctor and he never works for a basket of eggs or bushel of green beans anymore. However, the law profession will be safe thanks to the hard work of lawyer lobbyists who have strove to implement laws requiring all lawyers to be college educated and bar certified.
---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------
I can see the utility, but not the practicality, given the way that current hiring practices are set up. Unless you're going into a trade or starting your own business, college is fairly practical in terms of getting your foot in the door. Now, if all you're doing is a business degree, it may be better to just find somewhere affordable. However, if you want to make connections, find better academics, and find contacts, it might be better to go for a private school---because while it's expensive, there's often money backing it.
And the point of my "public good" argument is to say that Public goods can have state support, particularly if they are inherently non-profit. Indeed, Adam Smith makes this very point in
The Wealth of Nations. [/quote]
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have state support for the "public good" without utilizing legalized plunder (aka- theft), the stealing of money from some to redistribute that wealth to others. That is not a Godly principle and is not a legitimate function of the state.
He's correct to call it Capitalism, which is defined as mostly private control of means of production. Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism.
Actually, as pointed out above, he is not correct to call it capitalism. Capitalism is private individuals, sometimes in the form of corporations, to provide a good or service that they perceive they have a market for at whatever price and whatever level of quality they feel the market will bear. Corporatism is where these corporations entice government to set up regulations, taxing, etc. to benefit them over the small capitalist. This in turn leads to a suppression of the free market and true market economics where one goes out of business or changes if they have a flawed business strategy.
However, there's a middle class: entrepreneurs and small investors. These are the little guys who are getting bought out in this economy. I'm currently writing from Lookout Mountain, where a bunch of these folks live: they're the people who own the businesses of small towns and cities, serve on the boards of charitable foundations, and train their kids to do the same. They are "the rich" but not the super-rich. They don't have offshore accounts and so they suffer with everyone else when depression hits. These are often your doctors, lawyers, and bankers.
While it is the small business owner and entrepreneur who gets hit hard in a depression, it is also true that, in a depression, the very skills that come through skilled trades are the ones that will become the most valuable. An automobile mechanic will have work repairing everyone's broken down vehicles if is willing to do a good job and charge a fair price because nobody knows how to repair their own vehicle anymore. The welder, the electrician, the plumber, etc. will all be able to survive a depression because their services will still be needed while the video game programmers and computer repairmen will be starving. There will also be a resurgence of black market medicine if the economy gets bad enough because people will not be able to afford to see the doctor and he never works for a basket of eggs or bushel of green beans anymore. However, the law profession will be safe thanks to the hard work of lawyer lobbyists who have strove to implement laws requiring all lawyers to be college educated and bar certified.
---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------
My final thoughts, and then I will allow my contemporaries to have the last word if they so choose. Why, on a reformed board, are so many promoting secular humanistic fields of education? All of the "great" philosophers were atheists. Psychology is a purely secular humanistic field of science. The only type of history taught in university is revisionist history, and the science, while providing some limited value in teaching scientific method, is promoting Darwinian, evolutionary, secular humanistic science. I fail to comprehend the benefit in pursuing higher education in any of the aforementioned fields.
