This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
"Sin is Not Cost Effective" because it interferes with the efficiency of the so-called Free Market. What about the invisible hand that should be slapping people upside the head for sinning? Oh I forgot, that would not be "laissez faire." What I want to know about is the damage that sin does to the soul?
David, I see no need for sarcasm here (was that sarcasm?).
Given as Pope Benedict has emphasized the need to provide assistance to impoverished nations (see his remarks on the recent G8 summit), I see Dr. Morse's editorial as having particular relevance:
Foreign investment by itself, cannot jump-start a country’s economic development. Capital equipment, important as it is, can’t do the job on its own either. A country’s “moral resources,” like the transparency of government, a lack of corruption and the rule of law make the difference between an impoverished economy and a thriving one. Without a legal system that protects investments from theft, few people will take the risk of investing. Within a system that protects those who take bribes, those who produce jobs are at a serious disadvantage. Reforming the legal system in underdeveloped countries is a necessary part of any strategy for economic advancement.
Or in other words, "the most important “natural resources” for economic development are not raw materials like oil or coal, but moral qualities like the even-handed enforcement of law, and the transparency of government." -- I can't help but see this as common sense.
Without a moral base and the rule of law, nations can throw all the money -- "debt relief" -- you want at an impoverished nation, and it won't do a bit of good.
For example, England learned this the hard way when news came out that "Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion. That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent." [Source].
Economic assistance without the benefit of practical wisdom often turns out to be no charity at all.
The sarcasm, at least in my post, is directed not at the main body of Dr. Morse's major point. of course corruption harms the poor and hinders economic development. You are correct, this is no laughing matter.
The sarcasm is directed towards Dr. Morse's absurd re-phrasing of the gist of the article as "sin is not cost-effectve" This assertion is absurd on its face, there are literally millions of counter examples of time when sin is in fact cost-effective.
Just look at the most common justification for the sin of contraception: "we can't afford a child right now."
5 comments:
"Sin is Not Cost Effective" because it interferes with the efficiency of the so-called Free Market. What about the invisible hand that should be slapping people upside the head for sinning? Oh I forgot, that would not be "laissez faire." What I want to know about is the damage that sin does to the soul?
Rub a dub dub
Three men in a tub
and who do you think they be?
Hugh Hefner, Ted Turner and the Microsoft maker,
Turn them out, cost effective business men, all three.
David, I see no need for sarcasm here (was that sarcasm?).
Given as Pope Benedict has emphasized the need to provide assistance to impoverished nations (see his remarks on the recent G8 summit), I see Dr. Morse's editorial as having particular relevance:
Foreign investment by itself, cannot jump-start a country’s economic development. Capital equipment, important as it is, can’t do the job on its own either. A country’s “moral resources,” like the transparency of government, a lack of corruption and the rule of law make the difference between an impoverished economy and a thriving one. Without a legal system that protects investments from theft, few people will take the risk of investing. Within a system that protects those who take bribes, those who produce jobs are at a serious disadvantage. Reforming the legal system in underdeveloped countries is a necessary part of any strategy for economic advancement.
Or in other words, "the most important “natural resources” for economic development are not raw materials like oil or coal, but moral qualities like the even-handed enforcement of law, and the transparency of government." -- I can't help but see this as common sense.
Without a moral base and the rule of law, nations can throw all the money -- "debt relief" -- you want at an impoverished nation, and it won't do a bit of good.
For example, England learned this the hard way when news came out that "Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion. That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent." [Source].
Economic assistance without the benefit of practical wisdom often turns out to be no charity at all.
For further discussion of this issue, see Debt Relief, Trade Reform and the ONE Campaign (a post to Against the Grain).
The sarcasm, at least in my post, is directed not at the main body of Dr. Morse's major point. of course corruption harms the poor and hinders economic development. You are correct, this is no laughing matter.
The sarcasm is directed towards Dr. Morse's absurd re-phrasing of the gist of the article as "sin is not cost-effectve" This assertion is absurd on its face, there are literally millions of counter examples of time when sin is in fact cost-effective.
Just look at the most common justification for the sin of contraception: "we can't afford a child right now."
You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Ben,
I strongly suspect that Dr. Morse would agree with you, and it is doubtful that she would extend the assertion beyond the scope of the article.
Post a Comment