Disqus - Latest Comments for geoffh

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

geoffh — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:06:58 -0000

What's wrong with baseball? After all, the whole point in baseball and following Jesus is in trying to get home (ok, so that is a theological oversimplification).

But I remember reading that from Tony a bit ago. The problem for me is not so much how he described Shane's life, because clearly to live a celibate life according to a strict rule of life is something that a portion of the church has clearly always done. The problem is the strict distinction between that life (the radical life, or whatever) from a secular life of the family. Surely there should be more overlap between those two callings, between the call to an irresistible revolution and living a suburban life.

Re: The Common Root

geoffh — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:34:40 -0000

awesome logo. where did you get that?

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

geoffh — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:42:02 -0000

Justin,
thanks for the response.

first off, what is the Austrian School? It that of economics, or something else? Sorry I'm so ill informed.

But second, I never really thought about the Federal Reserves as inhibiting the free market through its manipulation of the interest rate. That makes sense to me. So the bail-out isn't really about saving the free market as it is preserving this form of the market which favors short-sightedness and quick profits (and a low cost of living). Of course the Federal Reserve would claim that it is not favoring bad decisions or malinvestements, but rather that it is staving off inflation (which presumably would hurt everyone which rise cost, but this is really a way of saying that we must preserve a low cost of living.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

Justin — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:47:59 -0000

Geoff,

I agree with you on the socializing risk and capitalizing rewards stuff. It is pure moral hazard, and it will result in this same situation occurring again and again.

But, as an amatuer student of the Austrian School (can't believe there's more than one of us here) you've got to understand that what we have is not a free market. The most powerful entity in the country is the Federal Reserve, which, instead of letting markets decide interest rates, chooses to set interest rates according to its purposes. It also gives the government power to do whatever it wishes, but robbing from its people through the inflation tax, but that is a different post all together. When the Fed sets interest rates artificially low (which it does every time there is an economic slowdown) it prohibits the free market from working out the bad decisions.... all the while encouraging more bad decisions. These low interest rates cause malinvestment. One need look no further than the housing bubble... in a true free market system, interest rates would likely be higher, but this would mean that the most efficient uses of resources would be pursued (likely efforts to find new, renewable, efficient energy), but instead, these artifically low interest rates, as well as government forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford a home, caused an asset bubble with homes. Homes are not investments, despite what you might be told by the National Association of Realtors. Because there was a new market for 1st time home buyers who never could afford a home, as well as investment home buyers, you get a striking increase in the price of homes. This actually makes it harder for responsible people working their way up financially to buy a home, and it rewards people for making bad decisions. So, when inflation reared its head, and interest rates rose, we've got WAY too many houses, for too few buyers, prices fall, and banks who create money through fractional reserve banking, all the sudden are shown for what they are, insolvent.

The free market is not to blame for this. Its the federal reserve and government social planning.

But, like I said, I agree that we cannot socialize risk and capitalize profits. That's called corporatism. And its bad news.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

geoffh — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:16:29 -0000

juris,

Thanks for jumping in. I also agree that much of taxation is legalized theft (or might we say governmental extortion), at least on the income tax level. But that will take us far afield.

In in the post I mostly wanted to focus on the bailout, and how it witnesses to different types of faith: either faith in the government and the people to fix it (and share in the benefit) i.e. socialize both risk and reward; the faith in the market to fix it (by letting bad institutions fail), i.e capitalize risk and reward; or Bush's version to have faith in the governement to fix the market when the market can't fix itself, i.e. socialize the risk and capitalize the reward.

And yes you are right that this Bush bailout would benefit the privileged at the cost of the underprivileged (another type of trickle down approach).

On the whole I agree with you rules for the market. But I'm not sure if they dig deep enough.
Concerning #1, of course I want to advocate voluntary transaction, but I would also want the total cost (economic, social, and environmental) of the transaction to be transparent and included in the price. One way to do this is through gov. regulation. But another is through individual responsible purchases which voluntarily chooses more expensive items because one believes not that we are entitled to a certain standard of living, but rather are responsible to God for how we live (this relates to your 4th point, which should be first).

Concerning #2, yes I agree. But of course, to persecute fraud is implicitly approve of making contracts. And who punishes those who break contracts? The State has taken upon itself as the sole persecutor of broken contracts by bearing the sword. When societies of honor break down (or are broken down by Capitalism) then people do not self-regulate out of fear of being shamed before the community, then who is going to regulate? The State.

Concerning #3, don't you really mean "investor beware"? Your example concerns putting money into investments with the hope of return. This is money used "productively" rather than merely for "exchange" of needed objects. I'm conflicted that we should use money this way, and if so how without falling into all the violence of global capitalism. Of course, the buyer should be informed and responsible (as in #1 above). But people would rather have a low price and beg off their responsibility by letting the gov. implement regulations.

So, perhaps I would say, those are good Christian rule for helping the Market (the Capitalist Market) work better. But maybe we shouldn't attempt to make it work better. But rather to make another type of Market all together.

(concerning that last statement, this is why I'm not really excited by the 'freegan' movement which is pure protest but not really striving to create something new. Of course I would be good with 'freegan' activities in conjunction with producing alternative, for example, eating thrown out bread even while growing your own wheat to make your own bread.)

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

geoffh — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:45:30 -0000

O good. now I don't have to be so plagued by bad consciences and doubt.

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

markvans — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:54:32 -0000

I have no real reasons, yet I instinctively know that Luke 12 (and all the other teachings of Jesus about money) don't apply to me today. ;)

Re: Economic Matters: Socializing the Risk or Capitalizing the Reward?

geoffh — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:47:38 -0000

Well, it seems that the financial package is stalled out because Republicans don't want to be socialist. Not hard to imagine.

"House Republicans have spent days expressing their unease about a huge government intervention, which they regard as a step down the path to socialism." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26ba...)

The question is will the Right really be able to bite the ideological bullet even at the cost of a severe recession? My question is still, what stake ought Christian have in all this? If our barns (of stocks, 401(k), and IRAs) are burning down, should we rescue them, especially when Christ seem to condemn those who build such big barns for hoarding wealth (Luke 12)?

Re: Democracy Matters: Discourse, Practice, Reality

geoffh — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:08:31 -0000

gyakusetsu,

When viewed as a form of government, democracy becomes an institutional tyranny; but when viewed as the action of a people (often against/in spite of the government) then it may not be.

Re: The Style of Subversion: An Introduction

geoffh — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:29:23 -0000

Mark,
great article. very honest.

two things: the first is that I'm not sure the pseudo-alterity issues is so much a social issues (while of course it is) but also an economic issue. See "merchants of cool" by frontline for cool hunters and all that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YuO8Zw9vJo).

Also, for me the defining thing about hipters and our generation is the ironic distance (or cynical distance) we have toward everything. Hipters are immune to criticism because whenever you expose their superficiality they just say, "Duh, I already knew that."

For me, the hard work of being radical...and the work of discipleship is to get rid of this ironic distance and actually live. Our relationships to others, to God, and even to ourselves are mediated through this distance, through these phrases of disavowal, through little gestures of insecurity, through voice inflections and sarcasms which say "I don't know who I am or what I'm really doing."

I would even venture, because I think I'm doing it myself, that church leadership suffers and congregational worship suffers because of the deep (might I even say 'unconscious') practices of ironic distance.

(an instance of ironic distance would be to conclude this comment with a mild phrase of self-deprecation so that you all didn't think I was some fundy)

Re: Render unto Washington?

Maria Kirby — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:42:20 -0000

Getting rid of money just creates other problems and does not prevent/avoid exploitation. I believe that it could be argued that the presence of money actually decreases the incidence of exploitation because there is a standardized means of exchange. The heart problems associated with money are greed and desire for power or control. Taking away the symbol or mechanism that people use to express their heart problems doesn't change the problems, they just come out in other ways.

Re: Render unto Washington?

geoffh — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:51:05 -0000

Luke, for me, this is exactly the point I think Jesus was making. Just get rid of money and problem is removed. I think the image on the coin should be contrasted with the image of God in humanity in general. Money is a means for obtaining objects/power at a distance (space and time) from the people who produced them, creating a veil to obscure the exploitation involved. Without money (and the images it bears) then would be in more direct proximity with the people (and God's image in them) who make the things we use.

Re: Going Public with My Privates (part 2 of 3)

geoffh — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:06:01 -0000

jurisnaturalist,
not so much that 'taking faith public' is wrong, but that it is exactly the wrong way of thinking about it. Rather, faith is always public, never needing to be "made public". This already being public is the community of faith, as I will argue in my last installment.

Re: Changing the wind?

geoffh — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:23:15 -0000

Steve,
Thanks for the great post. I really like it. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read/watches AJ. Thanks.

Re: Liturgical persistence and Ecclesial resistance

joseph of antioch — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:52:09 -0000

as a convert to the eastern orthodox church who likes to hang out with emergent types, I agree wholeheartedly with your premise - i was drawn to the orthodox tradition because of the beauty & richness of the liturgy - the orthodox sing their theology & this as much as anything allowed me to come into relationship to God through Christ

my experience with some of my emergent friends coming from varied evangelical backgrounds is they don't really have an understanding of what it means to come together & worship liturgically, praying verses written centuries ago by those who came before us - evangelicals, like americans in general, tend to have a poor sense of history, & there are big gaps in their understanding of christian practice & tradition - my hope is that the whole emergent conversation ( in its many guises) will fill in some of those gaps

Re: Liturgical persistence and Ecclesial resistance

Maria Kirby — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:18:54 -0000

Have you looked into the liturgy of foot washing? My understanding is that it is practiced by the Ethiopian church. Even in our Western, northern, sock and shoe clad environments, it seems to be a powerful liturgy. One of those counter-intuitive acts of grace that moves us to our knees.

Re: Liturgical persistence and Ecclesial resistance

geoffh — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:23:11 -0000

wow. thanks for all the great comments. yes I would agree with everyone the all churches have a type of liturgy (whether they recognize it our not). But I guess I'm advocating that certain type of liturgies are more fitting than others for both theological and anthropological reasons.

On one level I'm hoping that I can back up my thesis, but I'm not sure that I will eventually be able to. You all will help me I hope. By linking 'liturgical persistence' with 'ecclesial resistance' I want to begin with a stronger thesis than merely that regular practices of some sort are good for fostering the life of a community. This would be a sociological rendering of liturgy as merely a ritual that creates social cohesion. By this argument it doesn't matter whether you have a low or high liturgy b/c it still does the same type of thing (regulates and shape communal experience, etc).

No, I want to claim that God's disruptive grace is what liturgy is about rather than keeping the social graces of the community. But to do this of course I will have to deal with the counter factual evidence that there are many great God fearing, non-violent, sweat-shop free Christians in both high and low churches. And I'm sure that you all will keep me honest on this account.

Re: Introducting our Newest Co-Editor

geoffh — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:11:59 -0000

great to hear the changes.