Thanks Gloria, my humble opinion is that it’s based on some very powerful people who are determined to make money for themselves and leave many poor people who in turn they can sell their guns, food, men or women to.

These people will keep the difference between rich and poor for ever. This is a historic fact.

John

Thanks Gloria, my humble opinion is that it’s based on some very powerful people who are determined to make money for themselves and leave many poor people who in turn they can sell their guns, food, men or women to.

These people will keep the difference between rich and poor for ever. This is a historic fact.

John

I will add a few texts if anybody is interested that show that religion can act in different ways in this theoretical mix. It all grows out of my studies of Chicago (the city) in the 1890s. The issues were clothed in late Victorian dress, but, John, as you say--same issues.

While I can understand the wish of the Great Chain of Being economists not to rock the Great Chain of Being, I also think, as a student of rhetoric, that voices are being lost or were never properly heard.

Nor am I an economist. I believe that the problems for the great mass of people arose when the divine referential was lost / ignored in economic relations. That is, when what I like has become more important than what God likes.

Dear Gloria, the only one well-known hypothesis which I have in my mind comes from Max Weber, 1905, about the significant coherence between Protestant (Calvinistic etthics) and wealth (with an alleged lead of the Protestants over the Catholics). In Prussia the economic advantage of the Protestants at that time - in the imperial age - was actually present. Catholicism in Prussia was a strong minority - against the ruling Protestant state church. In Bavaria, on the other hand, Catholics dominated. But Bavaria was then not particularly strong economically at that time and had its focus on agriculture.

Best, Hein

Thanks to colleague who gave a comment. I am looking forward to hearing from some Economics colleagues.

I continue to wonder if any field test such as in science is going on. That is, in science there is an "Exhaust all the objections" model.

In some religious environments people consider being succesful, having a lot of money as a sign they are blessed by God. Islam and interest rates is another vivid example of how religion determines economics: the current fall of the Turkish lira is caused because president Erodgan refuses to increase interest rates, in a situations were inflation is rising. As a result the Turkish economy is overheating and and confidence of investors is crumbling.

Another example in ancient times; the offering of animals in Temples in Egypt, Sumer and of course in Jerusalem resulted in a vaste economy and finance trade.

Foreign coins needed to be exchanged in the local coin, and money trading was born. Some temples and cities became rich with trading offering animals;

The invention of banks is said to be based with the Knights of Solomon. They invented an I owe you note, that was tradeble. You could deposit a sum of money in one 'abbey', receive a I owe you note, travel to another country, visit another abey of the some Order and trade you I owe you note for money.

The influence of religions on economic trade and finance is pretty big and any econometric model should deal with that influence.

If it comes to ethics, religion still weights in the economy. If we go back to history we find 'Rerum Novarum', a papal letter discussing the labour conditions and this was the basis of christian bases labour unions throughout Europe. These unions sitll hold an important position towards governments, when negotiating labour conditions.It is possible that protestant based religions and their ideas about predestination held back the formation of unions in the U.S.

I noticed that the Presbyterians in the hurhc I went to were faitly cool toward unions. They were more in management mode, a retired minister told me. I thought is was the just SES of the members of that congregation but maybe this does go deeper and is historical.

The relationship religion and economics has a direct influence on the psyche of consumers. Most religious people will tend to be sober in their consumption.

They buy what they need, from time to time , they indulge themselves in a 'folie'.

In general; religions tend to call for wise consumption. I think there is a relation between high consumption and less religion in a society. Religion teaches us that we have to give the earth to the next generations. Consumption is ok but don't buy stupid things or things you don't really need.

In my opinion economics is a social science that tries to control rational needs and irrational lonings in a mathematical model. Above all economics should be a tool for politicians and society to uplift prosperity and well-being of a population.

Closing the poverty gap should be a number one priority for all politicians.

Some religions however hold on to the idea of predestination. If you are sick, well too bad, it is the will of God or Gods, if you are poor, sorry, it is a punishment of god, … This way of thinking does not encourage people to take initiative to improve the destiny of a people. People who believe in predestiantion seek for signs that they are blessed by God, and they find it in health, wealth and success.

When people believe strongly in predestination they will lack initiative to change economic and social circumstances. Chainging things would be futile as is it decreted by God or Gods that some people must live in misery and never get a chance to improve themselves in life.

Religion influences can be good but they can also hold back important and necessary changes in a society.

Thank you, Colleague Chris De Vos.

You may know it is Labor Day here in the US. The aspect of a deep philosophical ground between classes is there in the iconic images of Dame Rhetorica. This has links to some kind of spiritual or even mystical understanding that to demean and attempt to remove our 'other,' is to injure ourselves.

My professor had the caduceus-carrying and so 'healing' version of the Dame Rhetorica icon on her office door. Every time you went to see her, my professor looked Dame Rhetorica in the eye. I wrote some thoughts in the rhetorical context of Labor Day, but in general about two faces of Dame Rhetorica.

Gloria, I am not an economist but listening to the sermon on Saturday the priest quoted the following. Cannot imagine any of the large bankers in the western world would follow these teachings. John

What Does the Bible Say About Charging Interest?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/charging_interest

Hello, Respected Colleague John,

I think invitational rhetoric needs a plug here.

Look at the times that invitation was used to invite the other side--the moneylender--to come and see. Sometimes, the horror of coming and seeing where one's theory is not working too well is worse than going out to actually meet those people. He or she can rationalize the "I did more good than harm" to continue to stay away and isolated with the comfortable members of society.

The person with much power can overcome the conditioning never to meet those with little power. When he or she does this insightful task, something truly amazing can happen. Both sides are close enough to see each other as a human beings. That is why I have written the little US Labor Day-timed essay about The Two Faces of Dame Rhetorica attached above.

The preacher in all of us is tempted to chide those doing what we can see as the harmful acts, forgetting that they have some good reasons for their actions, also. Inviting may take many repetitions. But in the long run, inviting people to work and speak together has a lasting benefit.

In relation to the dame Rhetorica. Any good religion should just like any good economic and political system bring 'the I Am' in contact with 'the other'.

If it is successful then a religion is able to do what it should do: reconnect with the other.

In psychology the 'I Am' is often the ego, that when it turns to itself only wants to know itself, and not 'the other'.

10 years ago one of the biggest financial crisis in history of capitalism started because some people were able to sell supprime mortages in CDO's or collateralized Debt Obligations and sold these all over the world. These CDO's were financial products who got a rating from rating companies who where not neutral. They gave these CDO's a good rating while they where in reality subprime.

This is an example of greed of the ego that only sees short time profit and not the effects of fraude on the long term. In the long run millions of peopel all over the world were effected by a 'fraudulent scheme'.

Capitalism is a good system but it has inherent vices such as greed, and short term goals. It is a ego-centric system that does not want to know the other. This is a psychological error that is working in all economic systems. On a social scale this causes 'built-in disruptions' in the system. These can cause the system to go instable;

therefore it is my opinion that Keynes is correct when saying that the government needs to control the economy and build 'built-in stabilisators' or 'checks and balances' in order to soften the conjuncture waves and the crisises that are inherent in the system. The government needs to be a bridge between the financial world, the entrepreneurs and the people of a country. It is a job of the government to make sure that the powerbrokers in the financial and economical world (the egos) are in touch with the non powerful people (the other).

If a government fails to make that bridge they are a sword carrying Dame Rhetorica, if they carry the caduceus, the government does what is should do, and protect the people from the ego-based built-in disruptors of an economy.

Nowadays it seems that money of the BIG companies buy the political influence in the Congress and Senate, so that politicians protect the BIG industry and not the interests of people (see the obese problem, traffic of weapons, ….)

Thank you for a thoughtful analysis, Colleague Chris de Vos.

Economics is a theoretical game that is based on assumptions, as distinct from Finance, which is fundamentally empirical.

One either takes economic assumptions seriously, which is tantamount to a belief system, or does not.

No theory in economics has ever been discarded, regardless of whether it has been supported empirically.

In effect, Economics is a religion.

Thanks Colleague McAleer,

My husband certainly agrees with your belief system statement. He often describes econ this way. He is an observing astronomer and also holds cosmology a bit off under close scrutiny.

Belief statements are what they are, but Economics also has many practical benefits, especially in optimal decision making and public policy prescriptions.

Gloria Lee Mcmillan

While knowledge system that deals with social phenomenon such sociology, economics , psychology are Social Sciences ( note the plural) ; Study of nature ' as it is' is called Science. Physics, Chemistry, Biology come under Science and not termed as Sciences .

Any knowledge system that covers interaction with humans necessarily has multiple interpretations.