Shifting Wealth from the Western World

[wolfstrike]

America far surpassed the rest of the world in wealth and prosperity.How did we do it?
The answer is Christianity and liberty.
The message to the rest of the world is clear, if you want to be like us and have success, you need Christianity and liberty.
The Atheist Socialist left-wing can not live with the fact, they don't want either of those philosophies to spread. What a disgrace it was to them that America far surpassed Socialist countries.
America was set up by the founders to be a light of liberty to the rest of the world, for the last 60 years the Socialists have been active in shifting wealth from America to the rest if the (mostly Socialist) inferior nations.
1) Dissolve the borders and allow people to loot the country. Have Socialist run businesses that ONLY hire foreigners.
a) Low paying trades that have been near completely handed over to foreigners.
b) High paying careers that use the myth that certain nations provide people who are "smarter than Americans"
2) Tax the American public with Socialist programs that force the American public to provide free benefits and services to invaders. Programs that were once used to help the (American) poor.
3) Move manufacturing jobs to slave-labor Socialist nations and force Americans to buy products at profit.


Any person that doesn't want the borders controlled and jobs brought back, is an enemy.

[Peter1469]

The idea of globalism necessitated moving middle class jobs from the first world to the third world (now called developing nations). The workers in Britain and the US have hit the breaks. France, Italy, and Germany are next.

[FindersKeepers]

America far surpassed the rest of the world in wealth and prosperity.How did we do it?
The answer is Christianity and liberty.
The message to the rest of the world is clear, if you want to be like us and have success, you need Christianity and liberty.
The Atheist Socialist left-wing can not live with the fact, they don't want either of those philosophies to spread. What a disgrace it was to them that America far surpassed Socialist countries.
America was set up by the founders to be a light of liberty to the rest of the world, for the last 60 years the Socialists have been active in shifting wealth from America to the rest if the (mostly Socialist) inferior nations.
1) Dissolve the borders and allow people to loot the country. Have Socialist run businesses that ONLY hire foreigners.
a) Low paying trades that have been near completely handed over to foreigners.
b) High paying careers that use the myth that certain nations provide people who are "smarter than Americans"
2) Tax the American public with Socialist programs that force the American public to provide free benefits and services to invaders. Programs that were once used to help the (American) poor.
3) Move manufacturing jobs to slave-labor Socialist nations and force Americans to buy products at profit.


Any person that doesn't want the borders controlled and jobs brought back, is an enemy.


"Liberty" is probably a factor in the acquisition of national wealth -- but not Christianity -- not by a long shot. Our Founders, although they were moderately religious, never wanted a Christian nation. They'd just come from one that they found extremely repressive.

Socialism, of course, runs counter to personal wealth and bleeds away a person's desire to set high goals and follow them.

Qatar is the wealthiest nation in the world, GDP (PPP) per capita -- and they are Muslim.
Luxemborg is the second wealthiest and they have a lower percentage of Christians than the US has. The US is 9th on the list of wealthiest nations, and many Arab nations come in higher.

[Chris]

Liberty and protection of private property and free trade.

[NapRover]

The founders didn't want a theocracy, true, but to deny the integral part Christianity played in its formation is like denying the English had no part of it.
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

[Chris]

The founders didn't want a theocracy, true, but to deny the integral part Christianity played in its formation is like denying the English had no part of it.
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

Sure, it has much to do with the American character. Such things as the Protestant work ethics probably played a major role in wealth and properity. A more indirect yet powerful influence, especially in a market-based system, is the trust Americans have knowing everyone is Christian, even if Protestants and Catholics didn't see eye to eye.

[Mister D]

The founders didn't want a theocracy, true, but to deny the integral part Christianity played in its formation is like denying the English had no part of it.
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

With the exception of Vatican City, there has never been a theocracy in the Western or Latin Christian world. Fear of a "theocracy" would have been like a fear of dinosaurs for the liberals who founded this country. Theocracy is a term tossed about quite often but it has been largely emptied of any specific meaning. In contemporary usage it refers to religious people having the nerve to become active in politics. What the Founders feared were national churches of the type produced by the Reformation.

[Peter1469]

With the exception of Vatican City, there has never been a theocracy in the Western or Latin Christian world. Fear of a "theocracy" would have been like a fear of dinosaurs for the liberals who founded this country. Theocracy is a term tossed about quite often but it has been largely emptied of any specific meaning. In contemporary usage it refers to religious people having the nerve to become active in politics. What the Founders feared were national churches of the type produced by the Reformation.
I do get a kick out of those who insist the Dominists are taking over.

[Mister D]

Moreover, that the roots of capitalism lie in Protestant theology and anthropology seems obvious enough. I emphasized "ism" because I'm not talking about simple trade for profit but a social system or structure.

[Mister D]

I do get a kick out of those who insist the Dominists are taking over.
There does seem to be some confusion between religion in politics and theocracy.

[Dr. Who]

I do get a kick out of those who insist the Dominists are taking over.

I think that it is primarily the result of the Christian right mixing religion with politics and often pushing legislation in various states that is founded in biblical interpretations and religious agendas. Anti-SSM legislation in several states is a prime and contemporary example.

[Bethere]

I do get a kick out of those who insist the Dominists are taking over.

They just did. One example is they want to move our embassy to Jerusalem/make Jerusalem the capital in an effort to fulfill biblical prophesy.

[Mister D]

I think that it is primarily the result of the Christian right mixing religion with politics and often pushing legislation in various states that is founded in biblical interpretations and religious agendas. Anti-SSM legislation in several states is a prime and contemporary example.
That's called democracy not theocracy.

[Mister D]

They just did. One example is they want to move our embassy to Jerusalem/make Jerusalem the capital in an effort to fulfill biblical prophesy.
"They" lol

[Bethere]

"They" lol

They = dominionists.

Duh.

[Mister D]

[QUOTE=Bethere;1922890]They = dominionists.

Duh.[QUOTE]


lol Yeah, I get that. The point is that "dominionists" are about as threatening to this country as an invasion from Mozambique.

[Bethere]

lol Yeah, I get that. The point is that "dominionists" are about as threatening to this country as an invasion from Mozambique.

As usual you are very wrong about that. A dominionist is currently vice president. Sarah Palin is a dominionist. Ted Cruz is a dominionist.

The list is long, and you are wrong. Par for the course.

[Mister D]

[QUOTE=Mister D;1922892][QUOTE=Bethere;1922890]They = dominionists.

Duh.

As usual you are very wrong about that. A dominionist is currently vice president. Sarah Palin is a dominionist. Ted Cruz is a dominionist.

The list is long, and you are wrong. Par for the course.
lol OK.

[Bethere]

lol OK.

If you need help learning how to use quotes pm me.

[Mister D]

If you need help learning how to use quotes pm me.
You're trying too hard, son. lol

[Mister D]

America far surpassed the rest of the world in wealth and prosperity.How did we do it?
The answer is Christianity and liberty.
The message to the rest of the world is clear, if you want to be like us and have success, you need Christianity and liberty.
The Atheist Socialist left-wing can not live with the fact, they don't want either of those philosophies to spread. What a disgrace it was to them that America far surpassed Socialist countries.
America was set up by the founders to be a light of liberty to the rest of the world, for the last 60 years the Socialists have been active in shifting wealth from America to the rest if the (mostly Socialist) inferior nations.
1) Dissolve the borders and allow people to loot the country. Have Socialist run businesses that ONLY hire foreigners.
a) Low paying trades that have been near completely handed over to foreigners.
b) High paying careers that use the myth that certain nations provide people who are "smarter than Americans"
2) Tax the American public with Socialist programs that force the American public to provide free benefits and services to invaders. Programs that were once used to help the (American) poor.
3) Move manufacturing jobs to slave-labor Socialist nations and force Americans to buy products at profit.


Any person that doesn't want the borders controlled and jobs brought back, is an enemy.
Anyway, as for the contention in the OP, I do think the formative influences of Christianity and liberalism have played a large role in technological development and wealth creation but the US is no different from Europe in that regard. If anything sets the US apart in this respect it's a matter of geography and the lack of any serious military threat.

[decedent]

America far surpassed the rest of the world in wealth and prosperity.How did we do it?
The answer is Christianity and liberty.


Evidence?


Some of the poorest countries in the world are Christian. Some of the poorest parts of America are deeply Christian.


The richest country in the world, Qatar, doesn't have much liberty.


If you look at the facts, I think you'll find them hostile to your two theses.

[FindersKeepers]

The founders didn't want a theocracy, true, but to deny the integral part Christianity played in its formation is like denying the English had no part of it.
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

Oh, Christianity absolutely had an effect on our Founders -- just not in the sense that the OP portrays.

Take Thomas Jefferson for instance -- he wrote his own version of the New Testament. He believed the persona of Jesus as a great teacher and leader. You can find the Jefferson Bible online -- free -- to read.

The difference was that Jefferson, and many others in the Age of Enlightenment, which followed on the heels of the Age of Reason, did not put a lot of stock in the "spiritual" side of the story. If you read the Jefferson Bible, you will find that he removed all instances whereby something "otherworldly" took place. No casting out of demons, no walking on water or turning water into wine and no virgin birth. At the end, they put Jesus' body in the cave, roll the stone in place and leave. That's it. No Resurrection.

Yet, Jefferson and others admired the leadership teachings of Jesus, specifically those warnings not to judge others by what they believe.

So, yes, Christianity had a place in the founding of our nation -- just not in the way current evangelicals want to believe.

[FindersKeepers]

Anyway, as for the contention in the OP, I do think the formative influences of Christianity and liberalism have played a large role in technological development and wealth creation but the US is no different from Europe in that regard. If anything sets the US apart in this respect it's a matter of geography and the lack of any serious military threat.

The positive influence I think Christianity has had on our nation is in promoting a sense that all people are/should be responsible for their lives and also that government and faith are to be separate -- "Render unto God that which is God's, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

While Jesus' teachings are anti-socialist, they do strongly advise His followers to help their fellow man in a personal, charitable, sense. And, we can see that effect strongly in today's world. All sorts of charitable groups have their founding in Christian teaching -- like Habitat for Humanity and groups that travel to help others in need.

[Ethereal]

Evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations


The richest country in the world, Qatar, doesn't have much liberty.

And where do their riches come from, do you suppose? Because Qatar doesn't really invent things or produce much in terms of value. They just happen to be on top of a lot of oil which wealthy western countries need to power their advanced market economies.


If you look at the facts, I think you'll find them hostile to your two theses.

It never ceases to amaze me that someone who lives in a country that was founded on the principle of liberty, and which owes all its wealth and power to that principle, can still question whether liberty uniquely promotes prosperity.

[Ethereal]

"Liberty" is probably a factor in the acquisition of national wealth -- but not Christianity -- not by a long shot. Our Founders, although they were moderately religious, never wanted a Christian nation. They'd just come from one that they found extremely repressive.

Socialism, of course, runs counter to personal wealth and bleeds away a person's desire to set high goals and follow them.

Qatar is the wealthiest nation in the world, GDP (PPP) per capita -- and they are Muslim.
Luxemborg is the second wealthiest and they have a lower percentage of Christians than the US has. The US is 9th on the list of wealthiest nations, and many Arab nations come in higher.
Qatar is entirely dependent upon Christian countries for its wealth. Without its ability to leverage its oil, which western countries demand, they'd be another Arab backwater.

Any country with a European lineage, including Luxembourg, is heavily influenced by its Christian heritage. And I say this as someone who is not a Christian.

[Ethereal]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
--John Adams


Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
--Thomas Jefferson

The fact that the founders took steps to prevent the establishment of government churches or religions does not mean they wanted to separate religion from politics. Indeed, they believed that politics uninformed by Christian religion was largely incompatible with liberty.

[Croft]

"Liberty" is probably a factor in the acquisition of national wealth -- but not Christianity -- not by a long shot. Our Founders, although they were moderately religious, never wanted a Christian nation. They'd just come from one that they found extremely repressive.

Socialism, of course, runs counter to personal wealth and bleeds away a person's desire to set high goals and follow them.

Qatar is the wealthiest nation in the world, GDP (PPP) per capita -- and they are Muslim.
Luxemborg is the second wealthiest and they have a lower percentage of Christians than the US has. The US is 9th on the list of wealthiest nations, and many Arab nations come in higher.
I agree with you that it's liberty not Christianity that is the key. But mentioning those muslim countries is not accurate without mentioning the oil they sit on. Without oil every muslim country is a shithole. And of course they don't have liberty.

[Ethereal]

I agree with you that it's liberty not Christianity that is the key. But mentioning those muslim countries is not accurate without mentioning the oil they sit on. Without oil every muslim country is a $#@!hole. And of course they don't have liberty.
Well, it's kind of hard to untangle the western conception of liberty from Christianity because said conceptions emerged largely in a Christian context. Granted, Christianity isn't the ONLY factor, but it's certainly an important one in a historical and cultural sense.

[Peter1469]

I think that it is primarily the result of the Christian right mixing religion with politics and often pushing legislation in various states that is founded in biblical interpretations and religious agendas. Anti-SSM legislation in several states is a prime and contemporary example.

A far cry from Theocracy.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Bethere;1922900][QUOTE=Mister D;1922892]
lol OK.

loons

[Ethereal]

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.
--George Washington

[Chris]

As usual you are very wrong about that. A dominionist is currently vice president. Sarah Palin is a dominionist. Ted Cruz is a dominionist.

The list is long, and you are wrong. Par for the course.



Sarah Palin is a “Dominionist” with an apocalyptic End Times theological viewpoint that sees the war in Iraq as part of God’s plan....

Neither Sarah Palin nor her Protestant church affiliated with the Assemblies of God should be described as practicing a form of “Dominion Theology” or “Christian Reconstructionism.”...

@ What is Dominionism? Palin, The Christian Right And Theocracy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/what-is-dominionism-palin_b_124037.html)

You seem to like alternative facts.

[decedent]

And where do their riches come from, do you suppose? Because Qatar doesn't really invent things or produce much in terms of value. They just happen to be on top of a lot of oil which wealthy western countries need to power their advanced market economies.

The OP suggested nations become wealthy by being Christian and free. Not only is this false, but Qatar is an example of this. There are many more examples.


It never ceases to amaze me that someone who lives in a country that was founded on the principle of liberty, and which owes all its wealth and power to that principle, can still question whether liberty uniquely promotes prosperity.


Dogma. There are plenty of wealthy countries that lack liberty.

[Don]

I'm not sure shifting wealth away from the western world goal is the objective. More like shifting the ability to fight a conventional war on a large scale away from the western world to its enemies. We won WWII because we were able to out produce our enemies. Now we have built China into that powerhouse. China didn't do that because it takes a free people so we literally transferred our production to them. We built the factories and taught them how to run them. We have given them strategic information and what we didn't give them they steal. We have been conditioned to believe they are nothing more than a trading partner.

As far as religion the founders didn't fear it at all. They feared what nutty people would interpret it to be and they knew from experience that a government based on any church or a government that had a "state" church would have no problem interpreting the religion by what they felt was best for the people. The same way nutty people have "interpreted" the constitutions "promoting the general welfare" to what they think is best for the people.

[Ethereal]

The OP suggested nations become wealthy by being Christian and free. Not only is this false, but Qatar is an example of this. There are many more examples.

Qatar is an example of a country that benefits from the wealth of countries with a Christian background and a cultural embrace of liberty. Without their connection to the western world's advanced market economies, Qatar would be just another Arab backwater.


Dogma. There are plenty of wealthy countries that lack liberty.
It's based on centuries of empiricism, starting with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. This country's unique position in the world is due in large part to its libertarian foundation. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's true.

[Common Sense]

The US became wealthy because of an essentially virgin continent, great timing with the industrial revolution, European technology and immigration.

[decedent]

Qatar is an example of a country that benefits from the wealth of countries with a Christian background and a cultural embrace of liberty. Without their connection to the western world's advanced market economies, Qatar would be just another Arab backwater.


It's based on centuries of empiricism, starting with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. This country's unique position in the world is due in large part to its libertarian foundation. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's true.

You're saying that liberty brings wealth. I'm giving you exceptions. The only one who seems upset by these exceptions is you because they ruin your theory.


If you want to argue empirically, I'm ready. There is no necessary causality if there are exceptions. There are many "free" areas of the world that are poor and many rich areas that are not free. If freedom brings wealth, as you assert, the all free areas will be wealthy.


You're not as empirical as you think you are, especially if you're assuming that America is the freest county around -- which your kind tends to do. There are many countries that enjoy freedom, including the ability to publicly criticize their government, choose their careers, social mobility, opportunity, etc. Some of these areas are rich... some are poor.


Another thing your species tends to do is assume that regulations are harmful and socialist. Neither are true. In fact, nations with the highest genie index, where there is very high wealth and very low wealth, but not much in between, tend to be poor. Lack of regulation allows for wealth to become too concentrated, which is harmful to the economy. (Progressive) taxation is a simple way to deal with this -- something that even Adam Smith acknowledges.

[Chris]

You're saying that liberty brings wealth. I'm giving you exceptions. The only one who seems upset by these exceptions is you because they ruin your theory.


If you want to argue empirically, I'm ready. There is no necessary causality if there are exceptions. There are many "free" areas of the world that are poor and many rich areas that are not free. If freedom brings wealth, as you assert, the all free areas will be wealthy.


You're not as empirical as you think you are, especially if you're assuming that America is the freest county around -- which your kind tends to do. There are many countries that enjoy freedom, including the ability to publicly criticize their government, choose their careers, social mobility, opportunity, etc. Some of these areas are rich... some are poor.


Another thing your species tends to do is assume that regulations are harmful and socialist. Neither are true. In fact, nations with the highest genie index, where there is very high wealth and very low wealth, but not much in between, tend to be poor. Lack of regulation allows for wealth to become too concentrated, which is harmful to the economy. (Progressive) taxation is a simple way to deal with this -- something that even Adam Smith acknowledges.



You seem to think in terms of whether the government or ruling monarchy is rich, as in Qatar. Think in terms of the people being wealthy. Governments come and go while the people remain.