What is really wrong with the economy?
Amidst all the claims, counter-claims and finger pointing, the economy continues to struggle. Sure the unemployment rate finally dropped below 9%, but there was not a lot of celebration as only a little more than 100,000 new jobs were created, while nearly 3 times that number were so discouraged that they gave up looking, or at least are no longer counted as looking for work. Thus the unemployment rate dropped more from discouraged workers leaving the job market than from job creation.
While the reasons for sliding into this deep recession are complex, the reasons we remain there are not. At its core the reason is simple: “the rich” are people too. Even all those evil corporations are run by people. And this is why Obama’s class warfare election strategy of trying to get a majority of people to vote for him by demonizing those whom he claims do not pay “their fair share” is doomed as an actual economic strategy.
This is because the growth of the economy ultimately depends on those individuals who have excess money, i.e., money beyond what is needed on an ongoing basis. For an individual or a business, this would be the money left over after paying their required monthly expenses. It is what is done with this excess money that will determine the fate of the economy.
When it comes to this excess money, while it may vary in degree, in the end people are in one of two modes; either they are trying to use/grow their wealth, or they are trying to preserve it. A large part of any economic downturn is that people suddenly switch to preserving their wealth. They cut back on spending because they are uncertain what the future holds. As things turn around, people feel more confident about the future, and more willing to spend, or put another way, are willing to take a risk. They are willing to take the risk that they will not need that money in the future, and therefore are willing to spend or invest it today.
While this happens at all levels of the economy this willingness to take risks is particularly important for that group commonly labeled “the rich,” as they are the people with the amounts of excess cash needed to fund the innovation and change that is required to keep an economy growing. For example, without “the rich” willing to take the risks and thus provide the financial backing, there never would have been companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, McDonalds or any number of other companies.
Thus the real problem at the moment is that far too few people are willing to take the risks necessary to get the economy growing. While this is normal at the beginning of an economic downturn, the real question now is why is this still the case nearly 4 years later? The answer is really not that hard to figure out and comes from two main areas, both centered on uncertainty.
The first is uncertainty concerning the amount of risk. As the economy slid into this recession, the politicians did not understand what was going on, but that did not stop them from trying to do something, and so under Bush, they passed the first half of TARP, which, since it did not address the real problem, did nothing to stem the slide. Then Obama got the second half of TARP passed, along with the Omnibus spending bill, and the Stimulus bill. But still none of this addressed the real problem, which was actually an accounting rule change that had been put in place in Nov 2007. It was only after this rule was finally repealed in in March-April 2009, that markets began to recover somewhat, but by them the government had run up such huge debts with all the “fixes” that this debt itself was a concern.
In addition to the unprecedented debt, the new Obama administration used the borrowed money to pay for a huge expansion in the role of government and government regulation. Not stopping there, Obama pushed for the passage of Obama care, and then the Dodd-Frank banking bill among other things. Even, now there is still considerable uncertainty as to what Obama Care and Dodd-Frank will actually mean for business, other that higher costs.
But it is not just recent legislation. Following the Internet bubble Sarbanes-Oxley was passed. Now business decisions that in the past would be written off as bad judgment or possibly resulted in a shareholders lawsuit, can now be criminally prosecuted and land a CEO in jail. Throwing CEOs in jail may have been emotionally satisfying following the losses from the Internet bubble, but is not helpful at a time when we need CEOs to take the risks required to expand business and thus grow the economy. At the very time we need people to take risks to get the economy growing, we have made it very difficult to understand what the risks are, and if a CEO makes a bad decision, they may find themselves in prison. Is it any wonder that CEOs are overly cautious?
The other reason for the continued slowdown comes from uncertainty over the rewards that can come from risk taking. The benefit of taking a risk is the possibility of increasing one’s wealth or for a business earning a profit. Unlike earning a paycheck, the investments and expansions needed to grow the economy come at the risk of loss. Invest in a startup company and you could also lose all the money you invest if the startup does not work out. Thus to get people to take such risks, the rewards must be high enough to offset the risk. Yet while Government has been increasing the risks, they have been reducing the potential reward by driving up the cost through additional regulation. Increase regulation means that it takes more money to get a company started, and reduces the potential profits. In other words, you have to pay more and you get less, which makes finding those willing to take the risk more difficult.
Finally at the federal level, politicians have been threatening to reduce any remaining reward even further through increased taxes. At the state and local level, they have, in some cases, already done so. Thus to succeed is to place yourselves into the crosshairs.
The bottom line is that government has been increasing the risks, and reducing the rewards of the types of investment needed to get the economy growing again, while they demonize those who would take such risks. Then they wonder why people are “sitting on $8 trillion in cash” and why the economy continues to struggle. Ultimately, to get the economy growing again people’s attitudes need to switch from being risk adverse to risk taking, from preserving wealth to growing wealth. Obama’s current strategy of expanding regulation even further (e.g., use of EPA to set fuel standards), blocking development (e.g., the Keystone Pipeline), combined with a steady diet of speeches centered on class warfare is at best counter-productive.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 6
Week 14: Dec 11, 2011
This week we began to unpack John arguments and saw that 1 Century Gnosticism shared some key characteristic with modern 21 Century thought.
Study
ii. Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)
Having establish his premise (that God is light) John now begins to address the claims of the group that left. But rather than doing this specifically, John shows their inconsistency by stating their claims by as universal principles; principles that they were not living up to. He starts with three claims and formats his arguments in the following fashion.
Claim/Refutation: If we claim that…/ we are… – v 6
Counter-Teaching : But if we – v 7
Claim/ Refutation: If we claim that…/we are… – v 8
Counter- Teaching : (But) if we – v 9
Claim/ Refutation: If we claim that…/we make… – v 10
Counter- Teaching : …But if anyone – v 2:1 – Expansion in next section.
These were almost certainly claims that were made by the splinter group. But since John is phrasing these as universal principles, these claims can be troubling for Christians if taken out of context. Thus it is important to remember that John is combating heresy and his readers knew the people to which he was referring. They used to all be members of the same local church. Thus, as John is contrasting the behavior of the heretics with the lives of his readers, he does not need to provide a lot of details to show his readers that they had the truth, not the heretics that left.
1:6 – If we claim that we have fellowship with him but keep living in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth.
If we claim
– The construction of the Greek (if + subjunctive) shows that this and the claims that follow are said as a hypothetical. By stating the claims in this way John is including himself and his readers. He is making it clear that these are universal rules, and not just rationales created to attack his opponents. There is something fundamentally wrong with their claims. Their inconsistency meant that they cannot possibly be right no matter how good what they say may sound.
Claim #1 : we have fellowship with him
– This was a key claim of his opponents. They had fellowship with God. Gnosticism stressed that a true relationship could only be had by initiates who had the secret knowledge that Gnosticism provided.
but keep living in darkness
– Lit: Keep walking. In context this refers to continuous walk that differs from the teaching of God. This passage has concerned some Christians because they realize they fail on a daily basis to live as God wants. As such, they see themselves as living in darkness. But, as we will see shortly, John is not asking for perfection. The issue here is not one of perfection, but rather that for Gnostics such things did not really matter. It was the unseen spiritual not the physical that was important. Thus it was not that they tried and failed, but that they saw no reason to try, which is not the case with most Christians. As one Pastor I had put it, if you are worried about this verse, then most likely it is not referring to you.
With his mention of “darkness” John ties this back to his starting premise, a premise that his critics would have accepted. As John will make clear shortly, some of this “darkness” was that those who left do not have fellowship with one another (v7) and they “hates his brother.” (v 2:9) But while we do not know the exact specifics of how his opponents were living in the darkness, his readers would have understood the argument.
A key difference between Christianity and (proto) Gnosticism is that Gnosticism saw salvation, not as freedom from sin, but from ignorance. Ethics and morality were seen as just systems of rules, and as such to be resisted. Right conduct results, not from following external rules, but from inner integrity with the in-dwelling spark.
In some respects Gnosticism has a lot in common with modern thought. Today we also see “salvation” in knowledge. In fact the solution to most problems is seen as education. Have a problem with anger? This really does not have anything to do with sin. Rather it is a lack of knowledge and therefore the solution is to go to anger management classes. It would be as if, instead of telling the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more” a modern Jesus said, “go and take a remedial class.”
In addition, while the terminology is a little different, the modern view of morality held in the culture at large would be pretty consistent with the Gnostic view of morality, except rather than that saying they are guided by an inner spark as with Gnosticism, today we would phrase it as that we should be guided by our heart.
Refutation #1: we are lying and not practicing the truth.
– Yet while they claim they have fellowship, John shows that their lives are in contradiction with the truth they claim to have. God is light. Those who walk in darkness cannot be in fellowship with God. Note that again, as in 2 & 3 John, the key standard here is Truth. This is a very important standard for proto-Gnostics as their big claim was that they had the secret truth that no one else had. So to show that they are lying and don’t have the truth goes to the very core of their claims.
Questions and Discussion.
Much of the discussion this week centered on the nature of Gnosticism, its view of the importance of knowledge and its view of morality, and how they are similar to modern views. There are differences to be sure, but there is broad similarity as well. Thus as John is talking about those who left the church to which he is writing, he is also saying a great deal about the modern world as well.
Next week we will continue in 1 John 7
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 1b-5
Week 13: Dec 4, 2011
This week we finished the prologue and got a brief start into the main part of the letter.
Study
1:1b – what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we observed and touched with our own hands—this is the[1] Word of life!
what we
John continues with the 2nd of the 4 “whats”, and we immediately come to yet another question. Just who are the “we” mentioned here? One option is that John is using the so called royal we and referring to himself in the plural. While possible, one problem is that elsewhere in the letter John refers to himself saying “I’m writing these things…”
Another possibility is that “we” refers to the church at large. While this is consistent with some the later usage, (e.g. 1:6) this would seem to negate the importance of the eyewitness aspect of the testimony since by the time the letter was written, most Christians were not eyewitnesses.
With the stress on eyewitnesses, another possibility is that “we” refers to those who like John were eyewitnesses. While this is consistent with the stress on eyewitness, I believe there is better possibility: The apostles. This is similar to the previous option but is focused on the authority and consistency of message. This is not just John, but all the Apostles who heard the message. He is being sure to point out that he is not special, but that he was an eyewitness, just as other apostles were eyewitnesses.
have heard
The verb here is perfect tense indicating that this was a completed action and not one that was continuing. The message was complete and was not new was the case with his opponents teaching. This emphasis on hearing would stress the message more than the person.
what we have seen with our eyes
This is the third “What.” That it was something that that could be seen, shows that this is more than just a message, this a person, but could also include the miracles. Again, note the emphasis here. This was not just something that was seen; this was something that they saw with their own eyes.
This part conflicts with proto-gnostic teaching. Gnostics believed that outwardly you would only see Jesus. The Christ was within and unseen. Because of this, it is easy to understand why John would choose to emphasizes this point.
what we observed
The 4th and Last of the 4 “whats” is yet a further emphasis on visible nature of the “What.” This verb differs from the previous “have seen” in that it stresses continuity and attention. It often has the implication that what is being observed is unusual or out of the ordinary. Gnostics saw nothing unusual in Jesus. For them, it was the Christ within him that was special.
and touched with our own hands
Not a separate “what,” but linked to the previous one. Not only did they see the “what,” they touched it with their own hands. Again note the emphasis, this was not just something one could touch, but something they did touch. While a miracle could be seen, touching stresses the physical person of Christ.
this is the Word of life!
Having gone through the four “Whats” we come to the center of the chiasmus, and the focus of the “whats.” The Greek phrase could be translated several different ways:
1 this is word of life
2 concerning the word of life
3 the message concerning life
4 the message which is life
5 the life giving message
It all depends on how the passage is understood in the syntax. Given the Chiastic structure, I support the first view – Both the message and the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself the physical manifestation of the Word of God, a message that is focused on eternal life.
1:2 – This life was revealed to us, and we have seen it and testify about it. We declare to you this eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.
Verse one, with it allusions to John 1:1 and ending with The Word focused readers on the message, the logos. But unlike John 1:1 it was not just the Word, but the Word of Life. Here John begins to focuses on the life as he backs out of the chiasmus. (The ↑ mark is to indicate the corresponding phrase in the beginning of the chiasmus.
was revealed to us ↑ observed and touched with our own hands
and we have seen it ↑ what we have seen with our eyes
and testify about it and declare to you ↑ what we have heard
Again note the emphasis on this point with both Testify and Declare. This was not some secret (Gnostic) teaching, but one that was to be testified about and proclaimed.
this eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us. ↑ What existed from the beginning
At the beginning we have the Person (Word) but with a strong focus on message. Here at the end we have the result: eternal life. Yet there remains a strong focus on the person of Jesus, i.e. that was with the Father. This is similar to John 1:2 he was in the beginning with God.
In this passage we have the same teaching as John 14:6, Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. Jesus is the embodiment of eternal life in the same way he is the embodiment of the Word of God. It is the whole: Jesus as the embodiment of the message and life that is John’s focus.
This is one of the reasons for the complexity found in this verse. John is tying all of this together with yet another emphasis on the fact that this is not just something that he teaches, but that something to which he and others were eyewitness.
1:3 – What we have seen and heard we declare to you so that you, too, can have fellowship with us. Now this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus, the Messiah.2
Having established his main theme, John returns his reader back to where he left off with a short summary before moving on to the main verb in the sentence.
we declare to you so that you, too, can have fellowship with us
The point of all this is not just abstract theology, but our fellowship (κοινωνίαν). This is an association involving close mutual relations and involvement. (Louw-Nida) There is a unity and oneness to fellowship and this sets it apart from proto-Gnostics who had recent split off, who had broken fellowship.
Now this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus, the Messiah
This is not just a fellowship of other Christians but a fellowship that includes the Father, and also includes his Son, Jesus Christ. This again may be stressing a difference with John’s proto-Gnostic opponents. They had separated and thus were not in fellowship with eyewitnesses. More importantly their theological views put a difference between Jesus and the Christ. Finally, Gnosticism was more individualistic, stressing secret knowledge held by a few, whereas Christian is more communal offering a fellowship to be shared with all true believers.
1:4 – We are writing these things3 so that our4 joy may be full.
Finally John ends the prologue with a statement of purpose. There is an issue here as to exactly what he is referring to when he writes “these things.” Does he mean this letter or something more? A key here is the use of We, which is emphatic. In Greek, pronouns such as ‘we’ are optional as they are already included at the end of the verb itself. The ending –μεν (-men) means ‘we,’ so the word γράφομεν (graphomen) already means “we write,” since it ends in μεν (men). Yet John does not write γράφομεν (graphomen), but γράφομεν ἡμεῖς (graphomen hemeis) where ἡμεῖς (hemeis) is the Greek word for we. Thus he is emphasizing that this is “We,” and not just him. Given the context, discussed above, i.e., of the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, I believe “these things” references to the written version of the testimony of the apostles; to the entire New Testament, or at least as much as had been written to that point.
so that our joy may be full.
This is the second reason clause in the sentence (the first was so we could have fellowship). The verse recalls Jesus words in John 15:11
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete (full).
The “our” here is inclusive. John’s joy would not be complete unless theirs was complete. Remaining in the truth, within the apostolic message, and having a fellowship with the Father, the son, and with other Christians is the way to be full of joy.
I. Part 1 – Light and Darkness (1:5 – 3:10)
a. The Message – Living in the Light (1:5-10)
i. God Is Light – Establishing Common Ground (1:5)
1:5 – This is the message that we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness—none at all!
This is the message
John begins the main part of his letter with the phrase “This is the message.” This basic phase occurs only here and then again in 3:11 which reads, “This is the message that you have heard from the beginning:” I believe phrases mark off the two major sections of the letter.
we have heard from him and declare to you
This message was not a deduction or a belief; it was a revelation from Jesus. John is still referring to the testimony of the apostles. The message was one they heard (perfect – complete), and it is one they declare (Present – ongoing). It remains ongoing even today in the New Testament.
God is light
This is not a statement that is found directly in the rest of the Bible, but some passage come close. John 1:4-5 says, “In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.” Psalm 104:2 says, “you are wrapped in light like a garment, stretching out the sky like a curtain.”
More importantly, the Light and Darkness metaphor is common to many religious traditions during the first century. Itcan be found in Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and even the Jews at Qumran, talked of “sons of light” and “sons of darkness.” So John is starting at a point of common ground upon which all would agree.
and in him there is no darkness—none at all!
John not only makes the point that God is light positively, but for emphasis he makes the same point negatively. Then for yet further emphasis he add, “none at all!” The metaphor of light includes revelation and salvation, knowledge and morality. So while John is starting with common ground, he is also drawing a clear standard. “God is good and evil can have no place beside him” (Marshall)
Next week we will continue in 1 John 6
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
1 v1:1 Lit. about the
2 v1:3 Or Christ
3 v1:4 Other mss. read these things to you {B}
4 v1:4 Other mss. read your {A}
What caused the financial meltdown in 2008?
Here is the link to this morning’s interview on WSAU. It was a good and lively discussion.
[audio:https://www.hushbeck.com/blog/audio/Elgin_Hushbeck_on_what_really_causded_financial_meltdown_of_2008.mp3]What caused the financial meltdown in 2008?
There is still a lot of confusion about how we got into the current financial mess. Yet if we do not understand the problem, how can we ever hope to fix it? This Wednesday following the 8:00 AM news I will be on WSAU radio to discuss what really happened in 2008 and how most of the politicians in both parties did not really understand it, and how as a result their fixes only further compounded the problem. You can listen live here. If you can’t listen, you can find this in chapter 10 of the paperback version of Preserving Democracy
