PJ:

The Bible might seem to be a strange place to be doing economic research, but I have been thinking, from a political economy point of view, about the Tenth Commandment. Now the first nine commandments concern theological principles--thou shall not steal and kill and so forth. Fair enough. Then there's the Tenth Commandment: "Thou shall not covet they neighbor's wife. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." I mean, here are God's basic rules for how we should live, a very brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts, and right at the end of it is: "Don't envy your buddy his cow." What is that doing there? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, choose jealousy about the stuff the guy next door has? Well, think about how important to the well-being of a community that commandment actually is. What that commandment says is that if you want a donkey, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't bitch about it, go get your own!

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to collectivists, to people who believe that wealth is best obtained by redistribution, and that message is clear and concise: Go to hell! It's as simple as that.

I agree with the fella who said the protesters should be marching on Washington D.C.

It's like the government took our money and threw it down on the sidewalk. Wall Street came along and picked it up, so now Wall Street has our money. Which I'm not happy about, but really the government is who we should be mad at. Of course, WE are the ones who elected them.

"They don't seem to be asking anything particular of anybody in particular in a way that would change anything."

In the reports I've read, they seem to asking pretty consistently to be bailed out of the student loans they took out.

Rhetorical question: Had those loans provided the complainers with an education that rewarded them financially in the manner in which they seem to believe they were entitled, how much of that income do you suppose they would have voluntatily donated to others less fortunate than themselves?

Interesting. When I click on your link, Amy, it goes to the photo and the article. Then the screens goes all black, and if you scroll down a bit, there are 3 imbedded videos of the barricades, the people, and what they're doing. Kinda ticked me off there for a minute.

Actually contrasting the two movements illustrates the fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives. The progressives think that an effective tool for change is to stand around with signs, stomping your feet waiting for someone to "do something for you" even though they don't really even know what they want, OR how to get there. It's "magic" man......
Most conservative/libertarians realize that "change" only comes through the application of targeted money, and the real work of electing sufficient numbers of legislators who represent your view point.

I went to the park where the occupation is taking place last night about midnight to ask questions. I too felt that it lacked organization, a clear message, an idea for change, etc,. I have to be honest and state that I was expecting a bunch of lazy cry babies who didn't want to work and were looking for hand-outs. I didn't find that. Most that I spoke with were very articulate and wanted to open a dialogue. I asked why Wall Street and not elected officials. I asked about people taking responsibility for over-extending and then expecting to file bankruptcy or be bailed out. I also asked if they could understand that there was a perception that they were spoiled lazy people who though work was for other people.

Almost all of the people I spoke with said it started as an overall frustration of unemployment, foreclosures, lack of jobs, etc. They also said they feel there was no accountability for those on Wall Street asking to be bailed out and then getting huge bonuses and perks. One other thing that I was told but honestly still am trying to understand is their thoughts on the mortgage problems.

I spent a few hours talking to them and also saw that some of the things were gross exaggerations. There were no tents with sex or fee condoms. The police were actually pretty friendly with them and not hassling them at all and they were not giving the police a hard time. I also saw one fight break out and the cops broke it up quickly and made no arrests. It was a pretty peaceful atmosphere and they welcomed any and all questions.

Finally I told one of the people at the info desk that I thought they lacked organization, a clear message, and an idea of the change they'd like to create. He acknowledged that was true and said there were a lot of messages and they were working towards having more of a leader or spokesperson and some talking points. He gave me three and said that soon they would make them more public.

These people are, to a man, woman and child, the ones who were getting all pouty-faced and hopey-changy two years ago. (Hope!) They're incoherent because they can't risk having this pointed out... That the Miracle Child they'd counted on to lead them from the darkness is owned by some really, really hideous people, the ones in whose office they'd like to encamp.

link

I had conversation with a former co-worker. Another Former Banker. He reminded me of some feels I had shared with back when we were bankers. I really disliked that the CEO and the parent company in general got so much money yet provide nothing meaningful. The guidance we got from them was "Grow Sales, Keep costs growing slower." Duh. Looking at it now they kinda seemed like a government taxing us. They acquired the company by some unHonorable means and basically have a much larger legal fund.

The interviews I have heard that thought were interested were a woman who quit her job to Occupy Wall street. She said it was "not a good job" but admitted it payed significantly more than minimum wage.

Another one was an employee at the HQ of a major bank who was protesting on his day off. When asked about it he said he still thought it was wrong for the CEO to be make $100m/year even though he worked for the guy.

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to collectivists, to people who believe that wealth is best obtained by redistribution, and that message is clear and concise: Go to hell! It's as simple as that.

I'm not religious anymore and don't remember much of the Bible from my Lutheran upbringing, but it seems to me that Jesus would be far more outraged at 1 percent of the population in a country taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year and having 40 percent of the wealth.

> Jesus would be far more outraged at 1 percent
> of the population

Nope, you've missed the Christian message and the practical truth, too.

WEALTH CAN *ALWAYS* BE CREATED.

So did He sign off on this Commandment, or didn't He? Is small-mindedness the best of you want to achieve in your relationships to others? Do you really need to believe that your pettiest envy is a virtue?

If you want us to think that's what your life –and the lives of the Occupiers– is about, I'm ready to believe you.

"but it seems to me that Jesus would be far more outraged at 1 percent of the population in a country taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year and having 40 percent of the wealth."

Got a link for that? I've been looking for a primary source that backs that up, but I haven't found anything. What I have found is a bunch of sociology studies that all reference each other in circular fashion.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd offers an inchoate message with which I don't agree. But it doesn't follow that the Tea Party is a group that has acted sensibly in power. Its members in Congress have turned down the opportunity to enact reductions in government spending and increases in taxes in the ratio of about 9 to 1. I agree that Americans need to tackle the country's debt problems. But the Tea Party's approach just isn't smart.

Crid, your view of Jesus and how he'd view income/wealth inequality in a country (or in the world) obviously differs from mine. We'll have to leave it at that.

Dave, I took that from this piece in Vanity Fair by Joseph Stiglitz, which I'd posted on another thread. I presume he didn't extract the numbers out of his colon but who knows?

> We'll have to leave it at that.

Or you could answer the point... Your creator wouldn't mind.

These Occupiers are doing their damnedest to ennoble childish impulses, and they shouldn't be permitted to get away with it. If they were concerned about the less fortunate, those whom society has TRULY passed by, they'd mention them more often. (Or actually do something, and [perhaps] describe their own charity.) But their obsession is with the rich, and with resources which aren't theirs.

My interest in faith is, like, gone. But the richness of the Christian tradition has no patience with this stuff— Baby Jesus doesn't admire people who wallow in envy.

Interesting article by Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic on the two party system:

http://t.co/asPYnAtD

Okay, well, to answer the point. Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 state that Israel was supposed to introduce a "year of Jubilee" every 50 years, where they were to forgive all debts, free all debt-slaves and return all land acquired to its "original" inhabitants and their families. It's hard to know if it ever happened...but the principle seems to imply some sort of major redistribution of the wealth based on theological concerns.

"But it doesn't follow that the Tea Party is a group that has acted sensibly in power. Its members in Congress have turned down the opportunity to enact reductions in government spending and increases in taxes in the ratio of about 9 to 1. I agree that Americans need to tackle the country's debt problems. But the Tea Party's approach just isn't smart."

First problem is the Tea Party Candidates are not "in power". They have, at most, a third of the seats in the house that has a Republican majority.
The Democrats still control the government as they have a majority in the Senate and control the Executive branch.

So let me get this straight, in order to do their job and fulfill the platform they were elected on:

The Tea Party candidates are supposed to vote with the Democrats for tax increases now and "spending cuts later" that will never materialize?

Yea, THAT'LL get them re-elected.

Everything I'm seeing from the Occupy movement is they are looking for Equality. The problem is they want Equality of Outcome, not Equality of Opportunity.

I do agree money has played a large part in Washington. Our elected representatives are too influenced by money.

What needs to be done is have a review of every single federal law and find where it is in the Constitution. And that would be with a strict view to the commerce clause; Wickard v. Filburn would be repudiated.

Some federal agencies are honestly needed -- the FAA. The FCC should only exist to deconflict the airwaves, not to police content. The military is a federal function. I want someone to show me where the FDA, BATFE, EPA, Dept of Ed, etc. are responsibilities of the federal government?

It's like the government took our money and threw it down on the sidewalk. Wall Street came along and picked it up, so now Wall Street has our money.

Just wondering -- how much of our money does Wall Street have? (Excluding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of course.)

Of course, it is all well and good to have a hissy fit about Wall Street. For a smug 13-year old, that is.

You'd think anyone with more maturity would spend some time wondering what life would be like without Wall Street.

---

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to collectivists ...

I'm in the middle of reading Arguably, Hitchen's latest collection of essays. One of them is an outstanding take on the 10 Commandments. I think he draws the same conclusion about #10 that you do.

Wall Street doesn't need to be in New York. Or even in the United States.

They should be protesting in Washington DC. Wall Street cannot pass any laws or force you to do anything. When Bank of America annoys me sufficiently, I will move to another bank. If New York annoys me sufficiently, I can move to any of the other states.

When Washington decides you are a citizen for tax purposes even if you are sufficiently ticked off to leave forever, what then? Start your private Civil War?

Politicians are a good investment. They can be bought, fairly cheap for what you get. That is the problem, and changing the players won't change the game.

I'll bet none of the occupy wall streeters are entreprenuers.

I prefer hiring contractors. They work for themselves when they work for me.

The way I see it, if someone wouldn't hire themselves, why should I?

I will need a few full time employees eventually, but I've been so happy with contractors that I'm not really looking forward to the hassle that comes with full timers.

Jim P. wrote: "I do agree money has played a large part in Washington. Our elected representatives are too influenced by money."

See http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma-harrop.html

What needs to be done is have a review of every single federal law and find where it is in the Constitution."

Anyone can file a lawsuit contesting a particular law. But that doesn't mean it'll get anywhere in the federal courts.

Iconoclast,

The link you gave went to "Class Warfare: Q&A" article. I don't see how that relates to my comment about money in politics. I want regulations and laws to be neutral. So if you are manufacturing kids toys (Beanie Babies), or done as a pack of fifty rag dolls filled with dry pinto beans to be sold on the internet by some SAHM, they have a reasonable standard. What are the odds of either containing lead? Neither is exempt from $500+ testing. But can the SAHM afford to test it? No. She is therefore breaking the law. The same with other laws. Do you remember the exemption put into TARP for the toy arrows made in WA state?

That should not have to occur.

Anyone can file a lawsuit contesting a particular law. But that doesn't mean it'll get anywhere in the federal courts.

Why should anyone have to file a lawsuit protesting any law? If the legislators were already following the Constitution -- then the question would be is the mandate for 40K watts, not 50K, for my TV station legal, not "Is Janet Jackson's breast legal?"

If you actually read the Constitution you will try finding any number of departments and cabinet positions were not anywhere in the enumerated powers. The fact that the Federal Government owns large swaths of the western United States along with the Department of Interior are actually extra-Constitutional.

If some things were Constitutional, why does the federal government have to blackmail the states with highway funding -- i.e. age 21 drinking, DUI at .08, seat belt laws? As a matter of fact the whole interstate highway system is not what the founders meant by post roads.

Back to the central argument -- why did the government add the Bill of Rights almost immediately, especially the Tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where does Obamacare, or the Department of Education, or the BATFE come up in the enumerated powers?

Once you can answer those questions -- the rest starts becoming clear.