Moral Dilemma: Personal Poverty or International Social Justice?

[Peace]

I would change the question around, not whether it's wrong, but whether it's boring. I'd be curious to know what "nice place" means to you.

Well. To me it means a place that is safe, quiet, a place that is spacious, a place that is fairly new, where everything (heat, water, appliances, etc.) work without any problem, a place that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and that has good amenities (a nice pool, lounge, gym, etc). When I said "nice place" that is what I had in mind for the most part.

The writer Walker Percy referred to the city he chose to live in, in Louisiana, as a "pleasant nonplace," a suburb where he was not quite misplaced but also not hopelessly placed, a nonplace where he could tread water in life. That idea of "place" was something he wrote about, how in American culture we easily become anyone anywhere and no one nowhere. Vacations are a strange thing too, we vacate ourselves for a week or so in order to have an experience planned for us by others, kind of like going to the movies, seeing life acted out by others validates our existence.

Hmm. That is interesting. But when I go on vacation I don't have an experience planned out for me by others. I usually plan what what I want to do and then do it. I would say that I am acting out life myself more so than having someone else act it out for me.

So, that's a long way of suggesting that your question is not really a spiritual or moral question...you're more or less asking whether your culture, your being-in-the world, is worthwhile, whether to give it up would be a real loss to your existence or just a sacrifice for those who do not share in your economic and social reality. IOW, do your things and your car and your vacations say anything about you? If an archaeologist were digging around the ruins of your life in 10,000 years, would they learn anything from the fact that you owned a make and model of a car that millions of other people owned, or that you had a brief trip to the pyramids of Egypt and took a selfie in front of the Golden Gate Bridge? Does that reveal anything about YOU? idk...

Well. This is interesting too. I think it is a bit different than the question I asked, honestly, but perhaps I just do not see quite what you are getting at. The question I tried to ask, more or less, was the extent to which we should sacrifice things that bring us pleasure (such as having a nice place or a nice car) in order to be good Christians. In other words, do I really have to take a vow of poverty and eat nothing but bread and rice, or is it OK to have steak every once in a while?

But to answer your question - I think that my things and my car, and my vacations, etc. do say things about me. I am a person with real interests. I like certain things as opposed to other things, and I have unique preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. An archaeologist might not find them particularly significant, but I think that all of those things are part of who I am, and are part of the person that God made me.

What do you think?

[beatitude]

http://jimmyakin.com/2012/08/what-is-the-best-way-to-help-the-poor.html

I am very uncomfortable with Jimmy Akin's article, because its basic premise is that poverty is caused by people not having work. Gabriela opened this thread by speaking about factories with unethical labour practices. Sweatshop workers are desperately poor and they are often working sixteen-hour days, even sleeping in the factory, with hardly any days off. This is widespread. Saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life" in response to that isn't just condescending - poor people actually do have marketable skills, they're not poor just because we haven't opened their eyes to fishing techniques - but harmful. The issue here isn't unemployment, but unethical employment. 

I also think Akin has a naive view of poverty and its impact if he see the prevalence of mobile phones and TVs as an indicator that things aren't as bad as they were. The price for our ubiquitous technology is currently being paid in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The trade in conflict minerals is one of the bloodiest in the world and it means sheer horror and misery for the millions of people caught up in it, especially the miners and people living in the vicinity of mines. I notice that Akin talks about helping poor people to fight "their" kleptocratic governments as though oppression is something happening somewhere else, nothing to do with us - we're the good guys, the kind people who are here to teach these poor unfortunates to fish and make sure they have jobs by buying what they make. 5.4 million people have died in the conflict in the DRC and the number is rising. There is torture. There is rape. It's got the highest death toll of any conflict since WWII. The blood of those people is on my computer keys, and Akin's too, because it wouldn't be possible for butchery to continue on this scale if it weren't for the insatiable demand for smartphones and tablets. That demand is a major reason why the DRC wars have been under-reported. We want our gadgets, we want those minerals at cheap prices. Their poverty isn't just the result of their government, but multinational electronics companies and the choices we make to buy from them without considering the cost.

Additionally, having a TV (which these days can often be bought more cheaply than two weeks' groceries) isn't an indicator that you are not poor. I remember giving a talk about life in one particular refugee camp and someone pointing out (as if to say "Gotcha") that one of the refugees in my photos was speaking on a mobile phone. There still seems to be a perception that if you're not living in a mud hut with no electricity then you're some kind of fraud, not really suffering, and it bothers me when the people making that judgment call have so much more than the people they're judging as quite well-off really. How would they manage if they were called on to trade places? I live in a poor inner-city area at the moment, where there are few green spaces, lots of people living in apartment blocks and terraced houses with barely any room to turn round, and huge educational inequalities. In the suburbs there are leafy parks. Maybe the residents there might see someone from my area with a music player and think, "Oh, he can't have it that bad" - without pausing to imagine what it would be like to have no park to stroll in and few entertainment activities that can be afforded. TV and music players are pretty much the only relaxation the kids near me can get, and for some of them it's a way of blocking out life - gang problems, bullying. We take what we have so much for granted that we don't even think what it must be like to live without it, so the only poverty we recognise is starvation. This is a problem.

[Peace]

I am very uncomfortable with Jimmy Akin's article, because its basic premise is that poverty is caused by people not having work.

Global poverty is caused by the inefficient allocation of resources. It is caused by inefficient economic systems like communism, war, political instability, lack of education. I think that most economists will tell you this. They aren't going to tell you that it is caused by greed or a desire for cellular phones.

Gabriela opened this thread by speaking about factories with unethical labour practices. Sweatshop workers are desperately poor and they are often working sixteen-hour days, even sleeping in the factory, with hardly any days off. This is widespread. Saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life" in response to that isn't just condescending - poor people actually do have marketable skills, they're not poor just because we haven't opened their eyes to fishing techniques - but harmful. The issue here isn't unemployment, but unethical employment. 

OK. But how do you solve the problem of sweatshops? Let's say you pass a law that says company XYZ has to pay its workers in countries ABC a certain salary that you deem just. Maybe at that price level the company no longer makes a profit, or the profit it makes is less than it would be if the company engaged in some other activity (such as bringing the jobs back home to the US). Then what happens? The factory shuts down and the folks who had a job now have nothing.

That is a bit of an oversimplified example, of course. But you have to look at the issues and make assessments about their overall economic impact on a community. We could try to set up some socialistic/communistic utopia where the government allocates to each person a share that is deemed "fair" but we have seen what those types of systems produce - massive poverty well above and beyond what is produced in free market economies.

Sweatshops are not pretty of course, but it seems that almost every developed country (including the USA) has had them during the course of their industrialization. And that industrialization is an important part of producing wealth for large numbers of people. They do produce jobs and they do produce a benefit for the people working in them. If they did not - then they would not work in them in the first place.

I also think Akin has a seriously naive view of poverty and its impact if he honestly feels that the prevalence of mobile phones and TVs is an indicator that things aren't as bad as they were.

I don't know about cell phones but I think it is fairly clear that we have made great strides in combating global poverty and that it continues to decrease.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

The price for our ubiquitous technology is currently being paid in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The trade in conflict minerals is one of the bloodiest in the world and it means sheer horror and misery for the millions of people caught up in it, especially the miners and people living in the vicinity of mines. I notice that Akin talks about helping poor people to fight "their" kleptocratic governments as though oppression is something happening somewhere else, nothing to do with us - we're the good guys, the kind people who are here to teach these poor unfortunates to fish and make sure they have jobs by buying what they make. 5.4 million people have died in the conflict in the DRC and the number is rising. There is torture. There is rape. It's the most vicious conflict since World War II. The blood of those people is on my computer keys, and Akin's too, because it wouldn't be possible for butchery to continue on this scale if it weren't for the insatiable demand for smartphones and tablets. That demand is a major reason why the DRC wars have been under-reported. We want our gadgets, we want those minerals at cheap prices. Their poverty isn't just the result of their government, but multinational electronics companies and the choices we make to buy from them without considering the cost.

It seems to me that men have been pretty crappy to each other throughout history. That predates the industrial revolution and modern forms of capitalism. I think the evidence is fairly clear that free markets have produced much more wealth for more people worldwide than any other system in human history. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. But what would you replace it with? What exactly is your solution? Be less greedy? Buy less cellular phones?

Additionally, having a TV (which these days can often be bought more cheaply than a week's groceries) isn't an indicator that you are not poor. I remember giving a talk about life in one particular refugee camp and someone pointing out (as if to say "Gotcha") that one of the refugees in my photos was speaking on a mobile phone. There still seems to be a perception that if you're not living in a mud hut with no electricity then you're some kind of fraud, not 'really' poor, and it bothers me when the people making that judgment call have so much more than the people they're judging as quite well-off really. How would they manage if they were called on to trade places? I live in a poor inner-city area at the moment, where there are few green spaces, lots of people living in apartment blocks and terraced houses with barely any room to turn round, and huge educational inequalities. In the suburbs there are leafy parks. Maybe the residents there might see someone from my area with a music player and think, "Oh, he can't have it that bad" - without pausing to imagine what it would be like to have no park to stroll in and few entertainment activities that can be afforded. TV and music players are pretty much the only relaxation the kids near me can get, and for some of them it's a way of blocking out life - gang problems, bullying. We take what we have so much for granted that we don't even think what it must be like to live without it, so the only poverty we recognise is starvation. This is a problem.

There are different levels of poverty, and many people who would be considered poor in the US would be considered relatively well off in many third world countries. I am from the inner city. I own a house in the inner city. I am from a single parent household, I lived in the projects and my family was on welfare for a good time when I was young. So I think I know what it is like "not to have a park". But there is still a huge difference between that and people who live in some third world countries who literally live on a dollar or two a day. They are not comparable.

Poverty - both in the US and in other, less well off, countries is still a major problem that we should be addressing. But I do not think we need to deny that the spread of democracy and free markets has resulted in progress. I think that we can stay the course, rather than implement some radical change the ultimate consequences of which are unknown.

[Era Might]

Well. To me it means a place that is safe, quiet, a place that is spacious, a place that is fairly new, where everything (heat, water, appliances, etc.) work without any problem, a place that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and that has good amenities (a nice pool, lounge, gym, etc). When I said "nice place" that is what I had in mind for the most part.

Hmm. That is interesting. But when I go on vacation I don't have an experience planned out for me by others. I usually plan what what I want to do and then do it. I would say that I am acting out life myself more so than having someone else act it out for me.

Well. This is interesting too. I think it is a bit different than the question I asked, honestly, but perhaps I just do not see quite what you are getting at. The question I tried to ask, more or less, was the extent to which we should sacrifice things that bring us pleasure (such as having a nice place or a nice car) in order to be good Christians. In other words, do I really have to take a vow of poverty and eat nothing but bread and rice, or is it OK to have steak every once in a while?

But to answer your question - I think that my things and my car, and my vacations, etc. do say things about me. I am a person with real interests. I like certain things as opposed to other things, and I have unique preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. An archaeologist might not find them particularly significant, but I think that all of those things are part of who I am, and are part of the person that God made me.

What do you think?

Thanks for expanding on your perspective. I don't doubt you have preferences and and dislikes, but my dislike for modernity and industrial culture probably shapes my perspective differently. I guess what I was trying to get at was what culture is. To me, the idea of a nice, new, clean, safe, quiet place with a pool and laundry room is hell. I like trash in the street and drunks on the corner. I don't like them for themselves, but to me they keep me alive in a sanitized society where everything is clean and orderly. The happiest place I've ever been to was a mountain in Central America where the man I was visiting had no electricity, no bathroom, just a latrine outside. But it was heaven, he had a coffee finca, animals, a gendered culture of cooking, working, etc. It wasn't perfect, especially because it was hard getting the coffee to market. The modern vision would be to integrate that family into "developed" society, but the basis of real culture is then lost...culture is the ways in which create self-supporting autonomy, like gendered work or rites of passage. In modern society our culture is sanitized and displaced...our rite of initiation is going to college and getting wasted for 4 years, then working a meaningless job to afford a "nice place" that keeps reality out. I guess my overall point was that the problem the poor face is not really a problem of humanity. The poor are great at building self-sustaing culture, but they now exist in a world of industrialized poverty, where culture has been taken over by goods and services. I guess I think that asking about a Christian's "obligation" to the poor, what's more urgent than whether you give up something is whether the life your living has any spiritual value. What the poor need is a human society, something that I dont think modern civilization is able to create, though it's good at creating suburbs and plumbing and institutions for mass man. Anyway, don't take any of this as a personal critique of your life, just as questions that I ask from where I'm standing. My father is from Central America but the world he grew up in was healthy poverty...the world of Central America today is violence and ugliness...this is the price they're paying for "development" (I disliked Jimmy Akin's article especially for glorifying this inhuman idea of development).

[NadaTeTurbe]

Era, do you know about "degrowth" ? It's an economic/social movement against consumerism. According to wikipedia : "

Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption—the contraction of economies—arguing that overconsumption lies at the root of long term environmental issues and social inequalities. Key to the concept of degrowth is that reducing consumption does not require individual martyring or a decrease in well-being.^[3]Rather, 'degrowthists' aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community." 

Maybe it can interest you. My parents are close to this movement. 

[beatitude]

Global poverty is caused by the inefficient allocation of resources. It is caused by inefficient economic systems like communism, war, political instability, lack of education. I think that most economists will tell you this. They aren't going to tell you that it is caused by greed or a desire for cellular phones.

I am completing my doctorate in humanitarian practice and conflict response and I worked in the humanitarian sector; I've studied political economy enough to know different theories on causes of poverty. Saying things like "war causes poverty" is a truism, because what causes war? In the example I gave (the DRC) a major cause is resources, their allocation, and a desire to profiteer. So yes, greed is a factor. I think there is a tendency to try and make the cause of poverty something abstract, something that seems far removed from our personal lives - after all, if it's "political instability" that causes it, it's fine for me to buy what I want, it's not me, I can't change anything anyway. I struggle to understand how Catholics can deploy this reasoning: we understand the havoc that sins such as greed can wreck in our private lives, but suddenly we don't want to recognise that it can exist on a public level? That greed can have global ramifications?

I don't have time to respond to your post in full as it's late here, but there is one thing I want to highlight: your comment that the USA used to have sweatshops as part of its industrialisation process. There is no "used to" about it. The global north/developed world still has sweatshops; it's just that they are located in other countries now. We have outsourced sweatshop labour. Most of the things in those factories are consumed by the global north. (In fact, the same could be said of resources generally, not just things made in sweatshops - the USA alone has 5% of the world's population but consumes roughly 25% of the world's energy, to give one example.) It's not putting an end to sweatshops and slavery if you simply relocate them and then try to pass them off as the natural growing pains of a developing economy. This is a useful tool that brings it home.

Politically my closest fit is with the Catholic Worker movement, but even if you wanted to approach the sweatshop problem from a capitalist perspective, claiming that passing laws to protect sweatshop workers would result in more suffering for them because companies "wouldn't make a profit" shows that the issue is exacerbated by consumers. If they were willing to pay more for that dress or smartphone, companies could still profit (although I think it's entirely reasonable to say that they should settle for less - no CEO "needs" to be a billionaire in order for his/her time on this planet to be worthwhile). But that willingness is not there, partly through ignorance - you are right that lack of education is a major part of poverty. That includes lack of education in the global north, about what poverty is and how intimately we're connected to it.

As for a world without sweatshops being an impossible utopia - the kingdom of heaven as Jesus describes it might sound utopian to some, but that's exactly what we're called to work for. We're in his vineyard. I don't think we can watch others bearing our lives on their backs and say, "That's just the way it is, if they didn't have these jobs they'd have nothing!" and then face him.

[Gabriela]

@Peace: I was going to answer you, but I think beatitude did a much better job. I'll just say this:

Basically, to me, your view kinda' sums up to, "Well, okay, it's bad, but what can we do about it?" If everyone says that, who takes responsibility? Is really no one responsible? Can no one change this?

Also: The fact that unethical employment has always been a part of industrialization of nations in the past doesn't mean it has to continue that way. Why can't we find a better way to industrialize?

[Peace]

Beatitude - I am not a huge conservative, just so you know. Just ask Socrates if you do not believe me. I generally support things like public assistance, minimum wage laws, universal heath care, etc. I even support things like the guaranteed minimum income (at least in countries like here in the USA).

I am completing my doctorate in humanitarian practice and conflict response and I worked in the humanitarian sector; I've studied political economy enough to know different theories on causes of poverty. Saying things like "war causes poverty" is a truism, because what causes war? In the example I gave (the DRC) a major cause is resources, their allocation, and a desire to profiteer. So yes, greed is a factor. I think there is a tendency to try and make the cause of poverty something abstract, something that seems far removed from our personal lives - after all, if it's "political instability" that causes it, it's fine for me to buy what I want, it's not me, I can't change anything anyway. I struggle to understand how Catholics can deploy this reasoning: we understand the havoc that sins such as greed can wreck in our private lives, but suddenly we don't want to recognise that it can exist on a public level? That greed can have global ramifications?

At a macroeconomic level greed and the desire to profiteer is neutral. It has existed in every society in every time. It is one of the basic flaws of man. Do you think that the people living in third world countries are any less greedy than the people living here in the USA? Are humans any more or less greedy than we were two or three thousand years ago?

Since the fall of Adam we do not seem to have been able to figure out how to reduce greed in man in any practical sense. Yes greed exists and it does have an impact on poverty. But "be less greedy" is not a practical solution to eliminating poverty as far as I am aware. Attempting to spread the increase of democracy, political transparency, and free markets (or whatever particular economic system you believe is best) is something that has produced concrete improvements.

I don't have time to respond to your post in full as it's late here, but there is one thing I want to highlight: your comment that the USA used to have sweatshops as part of its industrialisation process. There is no "used to" about it. The global north/developed world still has sweatshops; it's just that they are located in other countries now. We have outsourced sweatshop labour. Most of the things in those factories are consumed by the global north. (In fact, the same could be said of resources generally, not just things made in sweatshops - the USA alone has 5% of the world's population but consumes roughly 25% of the world's energy, to give one example.) It's not putting an end to sweatshops and slavery if you simply relocate them and then try to pass them off as the natural growing pains of a developing economy. This is a useful tool that brings it home.

Yes. I think it is well known that many of the sweatshops in other countries are run by US companies. I have seen that tool before, but thank you.

Since you sent me a link relating to my slavery footprint, what is your definition of slavery? Slavery in the world does still exist. If you are dealing with a situation where someone is being locked in a room and forced to work, with no ability to leave, I would call that slavery. I would not call it slavery if a job is offered at a very low wage, and then a person is given an opportunity to take the job at the low wage, or decline the job and attempt to make a living by some other means. For all practical purposes, the best alternative that the person might have would be to take the job at the low wage, but I would not call that slavery.

Politically my closest fit is with the Catholic Worker movement, but even if you wanted to approach the sweatshop problem from a capitalist perspective, claiming that passing laws to protect sweatshop workers would result in more suffering for them because companies "wouldn't make a profit" shows that the issue is exacerbated by consumers. If they were willing to pay more for that dress or smartphone, companies could still profit (although I think it's entirely reasonable to say that they should settle for less - no CEO "needs" to be a billionaire in order for his/her time on this planet to be worthwhile). But that willingness is not there, partly through ignorance - you are right that lack of education is a major part of poverty. That includes lack of education in the global north, about what poverty is and how intimately we're connected to it.

In some situations passing the minimum wage laws might benefit them. In some situations passing minimum wage laws might cause them to lose their jobs altogether and harm them. I would not advocate passing a minimum wage law in the case where it would cause them to lose their jobs altogether.

Now, as consumers, if you have to pay more for that dress or smartphone, then it means that you have less money available to pay for a pair of jeans or a T-shirt. It is not as though we all have infinite sums of money to throw around. If a person is forced to pay more money for the dress or the smartphone because of a law that causes the company that makes those things to pay its workers more, it can mean that some of the people who work at the companies who made jeans or T-shirts lose their jobs, because there is now not enough money available to buy those goods and support those industries. What you are doing is essentially picking winners and losers instead of letting true demand drive the manner in which resources are allocated to the production of the various goods.

And it seems to me that as a fundamental matter, the goal should be to produce goods as cheaply as possible. A computer costs much less than today than it did twenty years ago. That benefits people here in the USA, it also benefits communities in Africa who may not have been able to obtain a computer at the higher price. The same is true for things like vaccinations, prescription drugs, etc. The goal should be that these goods should be able to be produced cheaply so that everyone around the world can access them. If you want to create a market where things are expensive then we all suffer. It is not economically efficient. The higher prices may cause individual gain for the people who produce the specific items that have been priced higher, but many people who actually need the goods at a lower price are unable to obtain them. It produces poverty on a macroeconomic level.

As for a world without sweatshops being an impossible utopia - the kingdom of heaven as Jesus describes it might sound utopian to some, but that's exactly what we're called to work for. We're in his vineyard. I don't think we can watch others bearing our lives on their backs and say, "That's just the way it is, if they didn't have these jobs they'd have nothing!" and then face him.

I also agree that we have a personal responsibility for the problem of poverty and that we should work to reduce it. I did not say anything about just saying "That's just the way it is, at least they have jobs" and then doing nothing else. What I am saying is that in an attempt to "do something" you can inadvertently cause more harm than the good that you hope to achieve. You have to weigh the overall consequences. The consequences of setting mandatory wages that are much higher than what the free market could otherwise dictate can in some circumstances cause more harm than the good that is achieved.

The goal of reducing poverty is the same. The area in which people can reasonably disagree is the best means of accomplishing that.

[Peace]

@Peace: I was going to answer you, but I think beatitude did a much better job. I'll just say this:

Basically, to me, your view kinda' sums up to, "Well, okay, it's bad, but what can we do about it?" If everyone says that, who takes responsibility? Is really no one responsible? Can no one change this?

Well. My view is more like this I think: "We have made a lot of progress and we should expect it to continue. Why not stick with what we know works rather than trying other things that may cause us to start moving back in the wrong direction?" The fact that I linked to above - that somewhere around a billion people have advanced above the global poverty level within the last 20 years, is promising. Rather than radical change at this point, I would advocate staying the course.

Also: The fact that unethical employment has always been a part of industrialization of nations in the past doesn't mean it has to continue that way. Why can't we find a better way to industrialize?

I am all for trying a better way if there is a better way. What is it?

If it is something along the lines of socialism or a state-controlled economy I think history has already shown that produces inferior results.

[Gabriela]

Well. My view is more like this I think: "We have made a lot of progress and we should expect it to continue. Why not stick with what we know works rather than trying other things that may cause us to start moving back in the wrong direction?" The fact that I linked to above - that somewhere around a billion people have advanced above the global poverty level within the last 20 years, is promising. Rather than radical change at this point, I would advocate staying the course.

I am all for trying a better way if there is a better way. What is it?

If it is something along the lines of socialism or a state-controlled economy I think history has already shown that produces inferior results.

No one (Catholic) on a Catholic board would argue for socialism or a state-controlled economy. That's against Church teaching.

But in response to this and to what you said above in response to beatitude: We do know of a better way, and a way to limit greed: Convert souls to Christ. The weakness in all your statements is that they take only impersonal macro-economic forces into consideration. The solution begins in each individual's heart, spreads to their lifestyle, and thus to the world.

This thread started with that, too. To quote a non-Christian: "Be the change you want to see in the world." That's what we're trying to do in here.

[Peace]

I like trash in the street and drunks on the corner.

Well. You might consider moving to the Tenderloin. Plenty of drunks and trash there. I am pretty sure that both of these result from some kind of sin, so I don't particularly see why one should be fond of them.

I don't like them for themselves, but to me they keep me alive in a sanitized society where everything is clean and orderly.

Aren't these qualities that one can associate with Godliness though? When the priest was about to make a sacrifice in the temple he washed up beforehand. Real nice and clean. He didn't exactly roll through a pile of mud. And we have an extremely well ordered universe - courtesy of our Creator. It seems to me that Satan causes disorder, in a general sense.

The happiest place I've ever been to was a mountain in Central America where the man I was visiting had no electricity, no bathroom, just a latrine outside. But it was heaven, he had a coffee finca, animals, a gendered culture of cooking, working, etc. It wasn't perfect, especially because it was hard getting the coffee to market.

I can appreciate this type of simplicity sometimes. But why exactly was this the happiest place exactly? You mean that this was the place where you felt the happiest, or the place where the people living there were the happiest?

The modern vision would be to integrate that family into "developed" society, but the basis of real culture is then lost...culture is the ways in which create self-supporting autonomy, like gendered work or rites of passage. In modern society our culture is sanitized and displaced...our rite of initiation is going to college and getting wasted for 4 years, then working a meaningless job to afford a "nice place" that keeps reality out.

LOL. I dunno know if modern culture is really all that sanitized though. Sanitized in what sense? Just watch half an episode of "Empire" if you don't believe me.

But that is cool to me if you want to go back to the days before modern technology. There are some things about it that don't vibe well with me either, like spending so much time staring at a screen or a cell phone. . .

I didn't get wasted during college though. And I don't consider my job meaningless. All work is good and has meaning I think (except if you are a porn star or something like that, I think).

That's an interesting take on wanting to keep "reality out" though I think. I grew up in the hood. A guy got shot dead a block from my house about a year or two ago. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to live in a place that is safe. Do you want your children getting approached by drug dealers on their way to school? If that is keeping reality out then heck yeah I want to keep it out.

I guess my overall point was that the problem the poor face is not really a problem of humanity. The poor are great at building self-sustaing culture, but they now exist in a world of industrialized poverty, where culture has been taken over by goods and services. I guess I think that asking about a Christian's "obligation" to the poor, what's more urgent than whether you give up something is whether the life your living has any spiritual value. What the poor need is a human society, something that I dont think modern civilization is able to create, though it's good at creating suburbs and plumbing and institutions for mass man. Anyway, don't take any of this as a personal critique of your life, just as questions that I ask from where I'm standing. My father is from Central America but the world he grew up in was healthy poverty...the world of Central America today is violence and ugliness...this is the price they're paying for "development" (I disliked Jimmy Akin's article especially for glorifying this inhuman idea of development).

First I think you need to define what you mean by "a life of spiritual value" and "a human society". Whatever these things are - I would think that the time/civilization in which one finds oneself is neutral in respect to achieving these goals. We have saints from every era and there will be saints from this era as well.

Secondly, I think that you might be a little too nostalgic about the past. There are plenty of inhumane things that those pre-modern societies produced as well.

[blazeingstar]

No one (Catholic) on a Catholic board would argue for socialism or a state-controlled economy. That's against Church teaching.

But in response to this and to what you said above in response to beatitude: We do know of a better way, and a way to limit greed: Convert souls to Christ. The weakness in all your statements is that they take only impersonal macro-economic forces into consideration. The solution begins in each individual's heart, spreads to their lifestyle, and thus to the world.

This thread started with that, too. To quote a non-Christian: "Be the change you want to see in the world." That's what we're trying to do in here.

I think the real thing is to be a good stewart of what you do have, and to be wise to what you need.  If you budget $10 for a meal, and you're feeding 2 adults and a small child, then buy the farm rice, local green beans from a a family farm and the free range chicken.  If you budget $10 for a meal and you have to feed 3 adults, 5 children and 2 toddlers then you may have to buy Uncle Ben's, frozen veg from a large farm and perdue chicken (or whatever's on sale).

I think the question you're asking yourself weither spending $10 for products you know are from people treated humanely and animals that are treated justly, or spending $6 on the cheap stuff for the first family and donating $4 to the food pantry.

It is a conundrum.  However, the way I see it is that God has given you the $10.  Not so you can spend excessively, but so you can spend with a right conscious.  A right consciouncous should lead us to make decisions that allow for the care to those we are morally responsible for.  As a single person, if you find yourself with $10 for a meal and you realize you only need $4, then morally you should donate the other $6 to feed the poor.  In this case, moreso than the others, when one finds themselves having excess, they should be examining the source of the products to ensure that the right parties are getting their money.  Those in poverty have a greater moral obligation to their family than the farmer. 

Don't take this as me saying that the poor should eat the junky food.  Poor have just as much right to healthy, nutritious food as everyone else.  This is about the moral obligation of the purchaser, because every item does have an effect on the economy.

[Peace]

But in response to this and to what you said above in response to beatitude: We do know of a better way, and a way to limit greed: Convert souls to Christ. The weakness in all your statements is that they take only impersonal macro-economic forces into consideration. The solution begins in each individual's heart, spreads to their lifestyle, and thus to the world.

Well if your solution is to spread the Gospel and try to change people's hearts then you will not hear any objections from me. I think that is something that we can all agree upon. But even for a person whose soul has been converted to Christ certain questions still remain - such as some of the questions you presented in your original post. I think what we are trying to address here is the answer to some of those questions. What specific actions are ultimately better for the poor? This is where economics becomes relevant.

I think the real thing is to be a good stewart of what you do have, and to be wise to what you need.  If you budget $10 for a meal, and you're feeding 2 adults and a small child, then buy the farm rice, local green beans from a a family farm and the free range chicken.  If you budget $10 for a meal and you have to feed 3 adults, 5 children and 2 toddlers then you may have to buy Uncle Ben's, frozen veg from a large farm and perdue chicken (or whatever's on sale).

OK - sorry to post-hijack, but that is interesting. Someone in this thread has made that point before I think. I don't see why buying from a local family farm is inherently any better than buying from a large supermarket. You seem to assume that wage exploitation is something that exists only at large stores. I think the owner of a local family farm tries to maximize his profit in the same way that owners of large stores do. Is there an assumption that one is greedier than the other? I bet there are plenty of small business owners who are plenty greedy and desire to pay their employees as little as possible and sell their products for as much as possible. How do I know that part of the additional price I pay for organic eggs is not due to the desire of the local farmer to make money? I don't see why one is inherently better than the other in that respect.

If I had the luxury of living close to a small farm and knowing the farmers personally and knowing about their business practices and overall moral values then that might encourage me to buy from them than from a large supermarket. But I don't really have that type of time in my schedule to devote to the choice of where to get my potatoes from.

I don't see anything inherent why "large/corporate" = bad and "small/private" = good.

I think the question you're asking yourself weither spending $10 for products you know are from people treated humanely and animals that are treated justly, or spending $6 on the cheap stuff for the first family and donating $4 to the food pantry.

It is a conundrum.  However, the way I see it is that God has given you the $10.  Not so you can spend excessively, but so you can spend with a right conscious.  A right consciouncous should lead us to make decisions that allow for the care to those we are morally responsible for.  As a single person, if you find yourself with $10 for a meal and you realize you only need $4, then morally you should donate the other $6 to feed the poor.  In this case, moreso than the others, when one finds themselves having excess, they should be examining the source of the products to ensure that the right parties are getting their money.  Those in poverty have a greater moral obligation to their family than the farmer. 

Here you hit on an interesting question I think. I don't think that you necessarily have to buy the $6 dollar meal and donate the $4 to the poor. If that is what you feel like God is calling you to do in the particular circumstance then you should do it, of course.

What if the company that provides the meal for $10 needs customers to continue buying the $10 dollar meals in order to pay the salaries of people who work at the company? If everyone decided that they wanted to buy the $6 dollar meal instead then there is not enough money around to pay their salaries and people get fired. It happens. This is precisely what happens at some companies when people get laid-off is it not?

What I am trying to suggest is that the impact of one choice versus another choice is not always so clearly a choice between right and wrong.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Peace

[Gabriela]

@Peace: Is the only option for a company either to keep wages low or to shut down? Because that's what you seem to assume. In fact, the wage gap between the lowest-earning employee and the highest-earning executive in most companies is outrageously unjust. Why must all cost increases come at the expense of the lowest-earning? It doesn't always have to come down to laying people off. Sometimes—oftentimes—it could come down to lowering outrageous salaries. But that doesn't happen—because of greed.

[Era Might]

Well. You might consider moving to the Tenderloin. Plenty of drunks and trash there. I am pretty sure that both of these result from some kind of sin, so I don't particularly see why one should be fond of them.

I'm a degenerate, and prefer the company of my own kind. No other reason.