The Most Spoiled Generation

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Is economics really the problem?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Do we want what we wants when we wants it? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I just got done reading Thomas Sowell's book "The Vision of the Anointed" and was thinking about the way our country is going, especially in light of a dialogue I've had going on on the web site of the local newspaper based on a letter to the editor I wrote on same-sex marriages.

Many people fear that our country could be in great danger due to economic troubles, and I agree we have great economic troubles. The idea for many Americans is that we want to get someone into the White House who we believe can fix the economy and get our nation running right.

There's nothing wrong with fixing the economy, but really the purpose of the president has not been to lead the economy but to lead the nation. In what way is the nation to be led? Certainly in the case of war, but not just war. The nation is to be guided into being a nation of good citizens, of people who do the right and to preserve law and order.

When focusing on the economy, what if we saw the economy not as a cause of our problems but a symptom, and that first cause is instead a moral decline that has taken place in our nation and part of the symptoms of it in fact is our focus on the material things of the world rather than the building up of character.

Many of our economic problems could stem from our country spending beyond what we have. It is the crisis of "I want it!" There is also emergency thinking that says we have to fix this right away and focusing on short-term solutions rather than looking at the long-term picture.

That "I want it" is coming directly from our morality. Too often we are simply saying that someone has a right to something without giving a reason why or discussing what the ramifications of it would be. Someone wants to have an abortion. Are we going to really discuss it or just assume that it should be given because someone wants it.

Today, it's same-sex marriage that is the issue. To say that we should have it because some people want it is not to give sufficient reason. There are many things I want but that does not mean I am entitled to have them. There are many things that we can all agree are good but that does not mean we are entitled to have them.

Let's consider food. It would be good if we could feed everyone in the country. Does that mean that we should give them all a steak dinner every night? For many people, that would be good, but it just isn't feasible to do.

If we were to do that, the funding would have to come from somewhere. Some people would be taxed. Those people would respond a certain way. Just because our idea is good and we thank that it should be done, that does not mean it can be pulled off. I would think it would be great if we could all teleport everywhere rather than have to spend time driving or flying. That would be great, but at this point, we cannot do it.

The same has often happened with our demand for justice. We know what needs to be done and if the law does not see things our way, we will react until they do. This is the case with rioting and vigilantes. It is the case of people thinking the world centers around them.

An excellent example of our wanting something right now is in our sexuality. Isn't it interesting how many issues today are revolving around sex? What about abortion? What about homosexuality? What about sex education? What about birth control? Could it be that maybe we need to get in our heads that we should not have sex always just because we want it?

In apologetics, we often see that so many people don't want to really study the Bible. They want knowledge, but they don't want to have to work for it. For my readers, I can tell you I nearly always have a book with me and I like to get in at least 100 pages a day and that includes walking to the library often. (And by the way, I read when I walk as well.)

If we want to deal with problems in America, the first place to start is not our wallets. It is our hearts. If we can deal with the heart problem, we will also deal with the wallet problem. Of course, this will not happen immediately, and part of the problem is in thinking that there is a quick solution, but it can happen when we seek to build a people of character again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Ben Zwycky]

"The cause of the crisis is a scarcity of morals. A turning point in the economic crisis? I don’t believe in any turning points by themselves. What we are accustomed to calling an economic crisis is another name for ethical poverty. Ethical poverty is the cause, economic recession is the result. In our country there are many who think that an economic recession can be propped up with money. I am terrified of the consequences of such an error. In the situation we find ourselves, we don’t need any brilliant manoeuvres or complicated strategies. We need an ethical approach to people, to work and to public property. No supporting the bankrupt, no going into debt, no throwing away assets for nothing, no extorting those who work, but to do those things that lifted us out of post-war poverty: to work and save and make working and saving more profitable, more desirable and more honourable than laziness and waste. You are correct that we need to overcome this crisis of trust, but technological, financial and credit measures cannot do it - trust is a personal matter and trust can only be renewed via ethics and by personal example."

Tomas Bat'a, 'The Henry Ford of Eastern Europe', in 1932, about the Great Depression. Times sure have changed, haven't they?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Excellent quote!

[Ben Zwycky]

My wife was sent it on facebook a while ago, I was pretty shocked that no-one seems to have translated the whole thing into English, since it so perfectly fits our current situation, very occasionally you'll see a snippet from it quoted somewhere, but not the whole thing in context, so I translated it myself for a thread on the occupy movement. 1932 was also the year he died, and he was later demonized by the communists, because he was a blatant contradiction of their economic theories - an articulate and visionary businessman with integrity who treated his employees better than they did their workers, and through operating his business benefited the communities around his factories far more than their programs could.