things like:

giving a value of zero the the natural resource tha is goin to be exploited/extracted/developed

assuming never ending growth although the resources are clearly limited

assuming that there is a “free market economy” when there is no uniform environmental and worker protection legislation

talking about free trade when countries like the US or the EU place tarifs, give subsidies, implement quota systems, and generate a ton of distortions that simply defeat the purpose of a true free market

assuming that the system is not based on greed. corporation are inherently predatory because if all the costs were accounted for the true cost of the product would be much higher and the standard of living that we enjoy in developed countries would have to be much lower, at least at this point.

assumming that technology will compensate for the depletion of resources when at the end the forces of nature dictate that as we pour more energy into the systems we manage more entrhopy will be generated and “leaks” will occur that harm the global ecosystem

the assumption that by a higher GDP gives higher standards of living, or that higher income is necessarily a higher standard of living thus ignoring health and other aspects of the global ecosystem

Neither straight capitalism or straight communism will lead to a more just system. The free market is also a reflection of people’s actions. George Soros has writen and spoken to that effect and considering his success as an speculator in the market i would bet he knows what he is talking about. Government involvment is necessary to avoid bust and boom systems that ultimately hurt the poor and destroy much wealth in the wrong places at the wrong time.

I am wondering if anyone here has heard of socialist democracy… (I think Canada has some of that, Costa Rica, maybe some baltic countries, and a few more) as any system it can be brought to excesses, but it tries to blend the good things that capitalism brings to the table while accepting that there is some social responsibilities, such as health care, education and freedom that need to be protected by society through governmental action. Thus, they are not left open for the free market economy to make money with.

I am not a christian but i am not an atheist either. I just think that together we can find ways that are more sensible, rational, efficient, just, and economically viable.

It has been nice to read all of the postings.

thanks

mauricio

Agreed.

George

We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I have no desire of defending what I’ve seen with my eyes and felt with my hands against wealth indices.

I’m in ATL…

I didn’t comment on the middle paragraph regarding fair trade and local producers because it was your statement of personal preference, and classical liberal that I am, I’m not going to argue with your personal preferences.

To me, fair trade is a variation of free markets. In free markets, producers and consumers negotiate price. In fair trade, producers and consumers negotiate price and the additional conditions of unionization, labor conditions, etc. Of course, it is quite possible that non-free trade producers allow for unions and good working conditions, but they don’t buy into the whole Fairtrade certification system. So, one of the things you get with Fairtrade certification is the comfort of knowing that you don’t have any moral qualms about the producers. Whether that necessarily makes fair trade morally superior to free markets is an open question in my book.

George

I’m in Santa Barbara, California, not Minnesota. Where are you?

One way to settle this debate–or if not exactly “settle,” then move it along–is to examine whether the standard of living among eastern Europeans has risen or fallen since the end of communism in 1989. Then we could correlate that rise (or fall) with the degree of economic freedom using the Heritage Institute’s Index of Economic Freedom. If the standard of living rising correlates with economic freedom, then perhaps that pushes us closer to a resolution.

James:

I was being sarcastic when I suggested repentance. For me, having wealth is not necessarily a sin. Not using it properly is. In a wealthy society such as ours, it is possible (and darn near unavoidable) to enjoy a good standard of living as well as to give generously to church and charity. What I am taking out of this discussion is not that capitalism is bad–which is your intent–but that there are many more opportunities to be generous with whatever wealth God has provided me. I don’t need all the stuff I have, and I should do more to help those who need.

If you’re proud to celebrate a holiday commemorating bomb-throwing anarchists, God bless you!

George