Redscape - View topic - The Gospel of Prosperity

The Gospel of Prosperity

Page 1 of 1

Author

Topic

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:01 am

I mean this both in the secular and religious sense.

What's your attitude toward prosperity, both personally and globally?

I'll just share my perspective. More and more I'm coming to think it has less and less to do with black and white externals and more and more to do with what motivates our actions. For example I could say it's low to drive around in a Porsche when a Ford would do, but what does that mean to someone in Bangladesh who could never have either? It seems to be more important that we are generous and caring people and act to make a difference with what we have and who we are. Doesn't the world need people like Bill Gates? Who am I to judge him for having so much more than me?

Yet I juxtapose that against a culture that despite all that it has also wants even more and lives in perilous financial difficulties for no other reason than rank materialism. But I think that has less to do with the external things themselves, and more to do with the internal motivations of envy, jealousy, greed, and self-indulgence.

It's not a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to not care about the man outside your gate. What's better, the man who forgoes riches or the man who embraces it so that he can be generous with others? I'd suggest the latter is a very rare bird indeed.

_________________
“I enjoy crushing bastards.” Assange

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Scarlatti
Emissary

Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:58 pm

We consider it noble to care about each other, and that is fine. I agree. Anybody can do that, and some do, more than others. But it is not a matter of prosperity versus humanitarianism. Prosperity is what most people in the world strive for, what most countries strive for, because prosperity means a country and its people prosper.

Prosperity does not automatically lead to greed, materialism (in its pejorative connotation), self-indulgence, or even loss of spirituality, as you suggest. These "sins" have existed far longer than capitalism, even before money, mon ami. People are not greedy because they are materialistic or wealthy. They are greedy because they are merely selfish. People are not self-indulgent simply because they drive expensive cars. Some people actually like to drive well-made cars, for example, rather than the junk I have to drive, because I cannot afford better. Quality costs. On the other hand, going to market on an ox cart does not make you Ghandi, either. Nor does it absolve you from sin, corruption, or indifference.

When a quake hit the impoverished country of Haiti, the survivors were not looting stores and raiding supply sites to help their fellow countrymen. They were doing it to help themselves (and their families). In fact, one reason the damage and loss of life was so severe in Haiti (as opposed to the one in Chile), was that Haiti is not a prosperous country. Its infrastructure was already in tatters, from long-standing strife and corruption. Chile came off better, in part because they have a better government and a better understanding of earthquakes when it comes to buildings. Yet, we saw looting there, as well. Was it rich people, hoping to score free turkeys from Wal-Mart? Don't think so.

I am not sure what your reference to Bill Gates implies, since he is known throughout the world for his philanthropic and humanitarian efforts. You posited the simplistic dualism of the rare rich humanitarian versus the apparently far more numerous, non-rich Samaritan. Well, from a strictly numeric point of view, I might agree. There are far more non-rich people than there are rich people. But lets take your thought-experiment to the next step: Of the many non-rich people in the world, how many are self-giving, non-materialistic, help-your-neighbor patrons of nobility? I'd wager solid money that the percentage is somewhat close to what you presume is standard for rich folks.

"Care about others outside your gate"? I like that metaphor, by the way, and it's almost a pun on (or perhaps, metaphor for) Bill Gates. Was that deliberate? A piece of irony? If so, I applaud your wit!

Now, how many people do you actually know in your neighborhood? Or outside of it, for that matter? Well, you might be unusual, so let's just pick any neighborhood (or large apartment complex) and see how many living there know everybody else. I'd have to say, unless it's a small town or some village in South Korea, the answer would be "very few."

Getting back to prosperity,. I submit that prosperity allows people and countries to be more giving and helpful than countries that are not, at least from a strictly quantitative measure. The United States has over the years given more money to other countries, charities, and programs than any other country, or most countries, combined. One reason is that it can afford to. It is prosperous. Of course, other countries (prosperous and not) also act generously.

It is touching to see even less prosperous countries do their best to help out in time of need, such as Morocco and Greece did in the aid for Haiti. Sure, it isn't always the amount of money or material you provide as much as it is the actual giving. Every little bit helps. That is one reason why we are often moved by examples of poorer countries and individuals who give their time, efforts, and wealth, to help others.

I fear I've wandered away a bit from the main topic of prosperity versus humanitarianism. Again, I believe this is a false dichotomy where one does not include or preclude the other. To your example, I would say that the number of non-rich people who are selfish, self-indulgent, and envious far outnumber the rich people who share those attributes. I don't believe rich people are more noble or less noble than the rest of us. But rich people can usually get more done than the rest of us, at least on a global scale.

Let me posit you this: How do you know how many wealthy people make up the "rare bird" of generous, giving rich dudes you suggest? Do you expect them to publicize their charities and philanthropies, as if they were bowling scores? Do you go around bragging about how much you give to Habitat for Humanity each year? Do you let everybody know how much time you put in at the food shelf?

You seem to have the standard belief that rich people are rich because they do not share. I would suggest that this is not the case at all, but that like most people, even (most of) the wealthy find it distasteful to grandstand their generosity. But I'll give you a pass on celebrities. They are not real people, anyway.

_________________
Scarlatti

-----------------------------------
"A collision at sea will ruin your day."
- Thucydides

posts: 128 | location: US | joined: 03 Aug 2003

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:27 am

Actually I think we are essentially agreeing here. There is false dichotomy. In a very broad and gross sense the Left says capital is evil and the Right says capital is good. I'm suggesting that capital is neither good or evil, as it is an external thing and good and evil are internal to us. A prosperous person or society can be either good or evil and is likely some combination of the two, but again the prosperity itself is neither of those on it's own.

You bring up a very interesting point regarding our neighbors, the apparent alienation that exists to a greater and greater degree. These days a neighbor is rarely an intimate to one's life. Our ancestors wouldn't have given a crap about what happened in Haiti, but would have been much closer to their neighbors. That's a tough nut to crack. I wonder how much socialism has influenced this trend, as my neighbors and I aren't directly too dependent on each other for any significant assistance as that happens now through a very large blind national system. Certainly a trade-off is occurring that is worth considering.

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Bluesman
Adjutant

Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:10 pm

Scarlatti, great post. Thanks!

_________________
Beauty will save the world
-- Dostoevsky

posts: 2616 | joined: 07 Mar 2003

Scarlatti
Emissary

Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Thanks, Bluesman. I was thinking it all started to sound kind of cranky. Maybe it is, and we're both cranks?!

Well, Pigmalia, I can agree with your summation. And thanks for an interesting topic!

Capitalism is neutral and depends upon how it is applied or abused. The recent economic crises do not mean capitalism is dead, in trouble, or showing its true colors, as detractors like to chide. It just means people who thought they were pretty smart outsmarted themselves and the people who believed in them. It means that congress, forever thinking of earning favors for re-election, gave the legislative keys to the mint to financial behemoths and said "Go ye forth and multiply thy loans!" Thus it came to pass. And it was bad.

On the other hand, I was probably a bit harsh in some of my rhetoric, which was not meant in any personal way. I sometimes get carried away, which is something my wife often hopes for. <rimshot!>

I have no good answer for the issue of "I don't know my neighbor". Perhaps it is an American phenomenon, since we are apparently responsible for pretty much everything else that is wrong with the world. I think it has much to do with the growth of "leisure activities", whether they be cable tv, Internet, video gaming, sports, or the local wine bar. We find our socializing in places of our own choosing, with people we select, rather than the people we wind up living beside. At best, we hope the neighbor next door is at least civil and cooperative, not some maniac, waiting to poison the family dog; some pedophile, hoping you're too busy to notice; or the local pain-in-the-ass who calls the police and every city office to complain if leaves from your tree drift into her yard.

In "the good ol' days", we did not have all of those modern distractions: We had the front yard, the block and our neighbors. That was our social center, in large part. As you correctly (I think) indicated, few people probably cared about Haiti or even knew where it was. Adults in their 50s and 60s were already considered The Elderly by just about everybody, including them, so they just sat around looking at scrapbooks of their grand kids and went to bed at 8. Not today, Bubba!

Today, people are, on the whole, much more active, more engaged, more outgoing and more world-aware. We don't have time to sit around every night talking with neighbors about yard maintenance, the problem kid down the block, or the philandering husband two houses over. The old fashioned neighborhood is a thing of the past, as relevant as the CP/M operating system. I'm mostly okay with that. But I do miss CP/M.

On the other hand, there are times when I wish it were like the old day. From the time I was 4 or 5, I was out all day and only had to come home in time for meals and when it got dark. I played with other kids in the neighborhood, and in other neighborhoods. We played outside all day, never in houses. Today, kids have "play dates" set up well ahead of time by well-meaning parents afraid that their children might get lost if they had to walk over to their friend's house. I guess there might be some truth to that in some parts of any city.

Rats, there I go again, rambling and rambling. Sorry 'bout that. Guess there are some things about older people that don't change.

posts: 128 | location: US | joined: 03 Aug 2003

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:23 pm

I loathe the term 'play date'.

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Ozymandias
Emissary

Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 am

Scarlatti wrote:

On the other hand, there are times when I wish it were like the old day. From the time I was 4 or 5, I was out all day and only had to come home in time for meals and when it got dark. I played with other kids in the neighborhood, and in other neighborhoods. We played outside all day, never in houses. Today, kids have "play dates" set up well ahead of time by well-meaning parents afraid that their children might get lost if they had to walk over to their friend's house. I guess there might be some truth to that in some parts of any city.

Is this really so hard to understand? I also loathe the "snowflake" trend, where parents treat their kids like an extension of themselves, and as incredibly fragile little things. And I daresay I'm closer to that stage of life than many here.

However, this isn't the 50's or 60's. Drug and alcohol abuse is more rampant. Premarital sex, and the risks associated with it, is far more prevalent. Increased mobility and a much reduced community/neighborhood identity means its much more difficult to just let your kids out of the house to run wild. Its easier for predators to make off with little kids. You don't know where they're going, and if you don't trust the family three doors down to watch your kid the way you'd want them watched, you'll clearly do it yourself. And given that I'd argue (without any statistical evidence to hand) that parents are working longer hours, and couples work more now than they would have 50 years ago, it makes for an environment in which a structured social event, to give it an awesomely boring name, is in many ways the most intelligent way to let your kids interact socially with other kids. I'm not saying its good... just that it makes sense, for a variety of reasons.

_________________
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1

Scarlatti
Emissary

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:08 pm

[quote="Ozymandias"]

Scarlatti wrote:

However, this isn't the 50's or 60's. ...Its easier for predators to make off with little kids. You don't know where they're going, and if you don't trust the family three doors down to watch your kid the way you'd want them watched, you'll clearly do it yourself.

(I edited out your other comments to get to my main point.)

Ozy, I'm certainly with you up to this point. Here, you contradict your premise. This certainly seems to be a more dangerous time, and is, in some places. Parents do watch over their kids more than before. Then why is it only today easier for predators to snatch kids? It should have been much more prevalent and easier in my day, when parents did not lurk over you and preview the police records of other parents. When kids were footloose and fancy free, who watched them? Where were the pervs then? Oh, for certain they really did exist back then.

But I'm not sure they are more numerous today. Perhaps the reporting is more common. I think the level and timeliness of our media/information services, Internet, what have you, makes for more things reported more often. Since news is now 24x7, everything gets publicized. And everything gets enlarged by repetition and volume.

posts: 128 | location: US | joined: 03 Aug 2003

Danivon
Ambassador

Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:37 am

Scarlatti wrote:

But I'm not sure they are more numerous today. Perhaps the reporting is more common. I think the level and timeliness of our media/information services, Internet, what have you, makes for more things reported more often. Since news is now 24x7, everything gets publicized. And everything gets enlarged by repetition and volume.

I think that's closer to the truth - I don't think that the proportion has changed much (the absolute number will, as population increases). There are two worrying trends though:

as fewer kids play out on the street, those that do are more exposed

as more people worry about it, to the point of obsession, any adult who is nice to kids becomes a suspect

_________________
World Cup 2010 - England

P 16(3) W 0 D 3 S 6(1) L 7(2) NMR 5
History

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:39 am

I don't think child idleness is happening exactly from fear. In the past, there just wasn't much of anything to do inside so kids naturally went out. For this reason we don't have a game system, the kids don't have a computer, and we don't have pay tv access. They naturally get bored inside, bounce off the walls, and we order them outside where they then spend hours running around and using their imaginations. I'd say most people would consider us to be very protective. The idleness problem is probably the result of how easy it is for all of us to be complacent with our lives.

Funny now that I think of it but to 19th century (and prior) citizens idleness was considered a big sin like alcoholism and the like.

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:12 pm

I can't say that I particularly resonate with Brooks or Platt, but I find the topic interesting and it seems this will be an ongoing part of the national dialogue.

Quote:

Maybe the first decade of the 21st century will come to be known as the great age of headroom. During those years, new houses had great rooms with 20-foot ceilings and entire new art forms had to be invented to fill the acres of empty overhead wall space.

People bought bulbous vehicles like Hummers and Suburbans. The rule was, The Smaller the Woman, the Bigger the Car — so you would see a 90-pound lady in tennis whites driving a 4-ton truck with enough headroom to allow her to drive with her doubles partner perched atop her shoulders.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

Today, savings rates are climbing and smart advertisers emphasize small-town restraint and respectability. The Tea Party movement is militantly bourgeois. It uses Abbie Hoffman means to get back to Norman Rockwell ends.

In the coming years of slow growth, people are bound to establish new norms and seek noneconomic ways to find meaning. One of the interesting figures in this recalibration effort is David Platt.

Platt earned two master’s degrees and a doctorate from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. At age 26, he was hired to lead a 4,300-person suburban church in Birmingham, Ala., and became known as the youngest megachurch leader in America.

Platt grew uneasy with the role he had fallen into and wrote about it in a recent book called “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream.” It encapsulates many of the themes that have been floating around 20-something evangelical circles the past several years.

Platt’s first target is the megachurch itself. Americans have built themselves multimillion-dollar worship palaces, he argues. These have become like corporations, competing for market share by offering social centers, child-care programs, first-class entertainment and comfortable, consumer Christianity.

Jesus, Platt notes, made it hard on his followers. He created a minichurch, not a mega one. Today, however, building budgets dwarf charitable budgets, and Jesus is portrayed as a genial suburban dude. “When we gather in our church building to sing and lift up our hands in worship, we may not actually be worshipping the Jesus of the Bible. Instead, we may be worshipping ourselves.” see more

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Danivon
Ambassador

Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:42 am

The opening paragraph doesn't chime with me. I've been looking at houses to buy, and those that are about 100 years old in the UK often have quite high ceilings but more modern builds tend to be lower.

Maybe I'm not in the market for a mansion...

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:29 am

I had seen tons of this, middle class couples with interest only loans so they could have twice the house and drive around in giant SUVs, just so they could really put on a show about how successful they were.

I like the look of 100 year old stuff, but without major renovations I hate the energy bills. Are energy savings re-fittings pretty standard there?

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Danivon
Ambassador

Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:40 am

Yeah, and you can get grants to do them. Of course, ours from 100 years ago are mainly brick-built, rather than timber, and so are better in terms of keeping heat in anyway.

Also, we tend to build houses as terraces and as semi-detached rather than as stand-alone properties, and sharing walls doesn't half cut down the bills.

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Jump to: