My friend Wintry Knight recently turned me on to an excellent American economist, statistician, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Milton Friedman.

Here is a short clip of Milton answering a rather pointed question regarding our responsibility to the poor wherein Milton explodes the myth that Capitalism and the free markets are somehow against helping the poor. Milton also points out in this short clip how most poverty and disparity in America can be directly traced to socialistic programs.

Here’s another video where Milton explodes the myth that Capitalism is inherently immoral or utilitarian by placing “the bottom line” above the value of a human life.

And finally, here is a video where Milton explodes the myth of that capitalism and slavery (or class oppression) are necessarily related. Milton also discusses how slavery is ultimately antithetical to capitalism as it ends up costing more and discouraging increased production or innovation.

Acts 2:44-45 “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need’

Acts 4;32b, 34-35 “..neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

That’s all well and good, but that only applies to Christians, not society in general. The reason that works with Christians is that we are endowed with the Holy Spirit as a guide and restraint so that we aren’t governed by our evil desires which tend toward excess.

Notice the terms; “everything in common”, no posessions were personal, distributed to everyone as they had need.

Is this more like capitalism or what critics would call “socialism”?

PS…. it is biblical!

Here’s my response:

Most people forget that it was Christianity that actually gave birth to capitalism¹ because, while it is not perfect, it does the best of any economic system out there to be fair when it comes to the unequal distribution of goods and services that exist and it also does the best job of restraining people’s natural desires to hoard wealth since one of the basic tenets of capitalism is to reinvest into one’s business.

Capitalism also tends to value social programs to a degree, it is a misnomer to think that capitalism is inherently opposed to a concern “for the good of the people”.

The problem we have is when we try to take an amoral system (amoral meaning neither good nor bad) and start attaching moral significance to it.

At the end of the day, an economic system is neither good nor bad but can be considered wise or not based on whether it sustains and helps prosper the people in it.

Socialism is not concerned with the production of wealth but rather the distribution thereof while capitalism is more concerned with the production of wealth. In the end, capitalism is in a much better place to provide hope for lifting people and nations out of poverty than socialism is.

A good case-in-point is the amount of resources capitalistic nations like the US (barely) are able to bring to bear in crisis situations like the present one in Haiti.

Also, for an excellent and concise definition of capitalism I feel the need to include the following definition borrowed shamelessly from Rodney Stark’s book Victory of Reason:

Capitalism is an economic system wherein privately owned, relatively well organized, and stable firms pursue complex commercial activities within a relatively free (unregulated) market, taking a systematic, long-term approach to investing and reinvesting wealth (directly or indirectly) in productive activities involving a hired workforce, and guided by anticipated and actual returns.

1. Two excellent books on this subject are Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber and Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay Richards

The path Alyosha chose was a path going in the opposite direction, but he chose it with the same thirst for swift achievement. As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth. Alyosha would have found it strange and impossible to go on living as before. It is written: “Give all that thou hast to the poor and follow Me, if thou wouldst be perfect.”

Read the whole chapter here.

The specific problem with Obama’s ideals, and hence their appeal to a wide range of people, is their focus on the philosophical view that the individual, and his or her rights and pleasure, is the pinnacle of importance.

This philosophy colors every aspect of what we know commonly as Liberalism however it isn’t all that new for one needs not look very hard into history to find the selfish “it’s all about me” attitude permeating history and streathcing as far back as Genesis 3.

Is it any wonder, then that Obama and his camp speaks so much about the individual and so little about objective good (which presupposes that the individual isn’t of primary importance)? Is it any wonder why we hear the R word (responsibility) so little and the E word (entitlement) so much?

The only thing that befuddles me is why people would think that such a philosophy could be compatable with Jesus’s teachings. Do people really not pay that much attention to ideas and the consequences they have?

My friend’s initial question was whether I thought Obama to be the anti-Christ. While I wouldn’t start painting horns on his head just yet, I will maintain that his current philosophy (which, as his conduct suggests is subject to change according to his audience) is against Christ (hence anti-Christ in the sense of 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7) and the ideals he stood, and consequently died, for.

BTW: This underlying philosophy is also why the overwhelming majority of liberals tend to not give as much to charity or actually lift a finger to help others in any real sense (other than superficial hand-outs).