Great article over at The Right Stuff by Matt Forney. Too bad that mainstream economics, of both Left and Right persuasions, is quiet on the subject of personal morality and its link to economic prosperity. In Economics, as in personal salvation, "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you."
Economics is a subset of the cultural milleu. Bad culture, bad economics. It's as simple as that.
Thanks SP. I also have a blog of my own, though I'm moving away from political topics and more towards masculine self-improvement there. Link in my name.
ReplyDeleteIf culture is upstream from politics, it would make sense for it to be upstream from economics too.
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteI'd keep the interest in politics and economics. Part of self improvement is not just in the body but in the mind. The big ideas matter.
Besides, you're a good writer. Good ideas need to be expressed clearly.
@KK
Correct. This is why conservatism is failing. Conservatives tend to think in terms of law and Government regulation and very little in terms of morality, the source from which the very laws are derived. Many righties simply can't see that changing the law is hopeless if the culture doesn't support it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNot sure the concepts of "upstream" and "downstream" are really definitive in a system with feedback. Considering Portland vs Detroit: were the people of Detroit lacking in industriousness 60 years ago? Might the changes have something to do with economic incentives?
ReplyDeleteI agree with David, there are feedbacks associated with both economic and political systems. They all drive changes to each other as a complicated dynamic living thing, a nation.
ReplyDeleteThe east germany/west germany dichotomy might be a good example of that premise. Although east germany was one of the most prosperous of the communist states, it was still way behind west germany. In addition to material wealth, the gov't policies severely damaged the old moral systems from which it never recovered.
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/010623_paper20.pdf
Have you seen Dalrock's latest post about economic achievement among young men and women? Given your series of posts on the subject earlier I thought you might have some comment to make on it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@David
ReplyDeleteInteresting point but I'm not sure economic incentives were a big factor. I don't think that the failure of American Auto industry is responsible for Detroit's decline. Although there are many who think poverty equates with vice I think this is intellectually sloppy. Median household income in Warsaw Poland is approx $US 15K whilst in Detroit it's 23K. Yet the two cities are vastly different. Perhaps it may have something to do with the value systems of the city's citizens.
Oh, and if you look at Poland, for nearly fifty years, bourgeois values were punished. (sometimes literally with execution) and yet the country is still not the shithole that is Detroit. It appears that economic and social disincentives have not achieved the social corrosion that such a theory would predict.
@Drew
In addition to material wealth, the gov't policies severely damaged the old moral systems from which it never recovered.
I think this is a problem throughout Eastern Europe. It wasn't so much the Economic policies which did the damage as much as the wholesale physical destruction of the bourgeois. Once that cultural capital was restored the untermensch reasserted themselves.
@Iangobard.
Thanks. I'll have a look at it.
Portland and Detroit are both liberal, but Portlanders are intelligent, virtuous and industrious while Detroiters are worthless, idiotic layabouts. Hence, Portland thrives while Detroit slips back into the third world.
ReplyDeleteThe morality in question here is that of entrepreneurial work ethic, self-reliance, and future time orientation. These traits are often labeled together as executive function in psychology. Robert Heinlein would describe them as "competence".
ReplyDeleteI agree these are key traits necessary for a functional society.
Given that the Portland area is one of the least religious areas in the country, its reasonable to say that high executive function does not necessarily correlate with the belief in a go entity, let alone in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Your mileage may vary.
The decimation of the German monetary value left young women who were working and saving in order to have a dowry unable to marry. It left young men unable to work and save in order to one day support a family. It encouraged the moral decline by destroying the incentive to create a stable family. Those young people responded to the total lack of incentive to engage in long-term planning/delayed gratification... they ceased striving for what was good, and German society was destroyed as a result.
ReplyDeleteThose young people responded to the total lack of incentive to engage in long-term planning/delayed gratification... they ceased striving for what was good, and German society was destroyed as a result.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you visit Germany.
I spent 3 weeks in Germany on business about 10 years ago and found that German young people are very hard working and productive. At least this was true for the industry that I worked in at the time, which is semiconductors and photonics process equipment.
I think Your notion that Germans are lazy and unproductive is a lie.
@Kurt9
ReplyDeleteSome good points. I'll get back later today with some thoughts.
Kurt9: my comment was in response to Drew at 6:10. My apologies for not being more clear. My point was that those old moral systems were damaged by destroying the dowry, making old stuffy sexual morality a thing of the past. Young men of the day couldn't support a family, and young women couldn't supply a dowry to attract a decent man. The young did not throw away the morals of the previous generations without a very personal reason.
ReplyDelete@Kurt9
ReplyDeleteGiven that the Portland area is one of the least religious areas in the country, its reasonable to say that high executive function does not necessarily correlate with the belief in a go entity,
Modern Portlanders are raised in contemporary U.S. culture which is still heavily influenced by Christian thinking. So much "ethical" behaviour by atheists is unacknowledged Christian culture. Countries such as Japan had to import Western (aka Christian ways) to get their economies going. Doing things their own way kept them poor.
WHilst it is not necessary to believe in God to have high executive function. An amoral society (especially one which fails to maintain property rights or sanctions dishonesty) makes executive function very difficult to actualise.
Anon@7:54
I think you're quoting from the book Before the Deluge. I think its important to note that most of the rot happened in the cities. Country girls still were very conservative even though they were just as impoverished. Though I will admit that economic hardship hastened the rot in the cities.
An amoral society (especially one which fails to maintain property rights or sanctions dishonesty) makes executive function very difficult to actualize.
ReplyDeleteThis is true. Property rights are a foundation of prosperity. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is necessary for the defense of property right nor that it is the most optimized defense of such. The most fundamental property right of all is that of self ownership. The individual owns his/her self and one's life. The philosophies of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and even the writings of Robert Heinlein provide a far better, more logically consistent basis for individual self-ownership than an Abrahamic religion such as Christianity. Rand's hatred of organized religion is well-known (and for good reason) whereas Rothbard and Heinlein were benignly indifferent to Christianity (as am I).
It is the refusal of Christianity to recognized the privacy and autonomy of the individual (self-ownership in the Rothbard sense) is one reason why I rejected it long time ago. The other reason why I do not care much for Christianity is that I am an advocate of development of radical life extension and transhumanism, in general, and have found that most social conservatives are often hostile to the development of radical life extension. Of course, I can never accept this.
However, I am not convinced that Christianity is necessary for the defense of property right nor that it is the most optimized defense of such.
ReplyDeleteThe Church optimises for human happiness not property rights. I think it is a great mistake to think you can have absolute property rights and human happiness. It is the libertarian myth. Even from a strictly logical perspective, the concept of a common good implies that there are things at least some things we share in common.
By the way, the Church believes in more than radical life extension, it believes in immortality of the soul. You can't get any more radical than than. It's true, that there are many fundies of all Christian stripes who want to restrict your autonomy, God lets you have it 100%. You see, you've got to give him his autonomy as well. If you stuff up, well it's your problem not his. A C.S. Lewis said, the song they sing in Hell is "I did it my way".
I think it is a great mistake to think you can have absolute property rights and human happiness. It is the libertarian myth.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to believe this, Indeed, I regard absolute property rights as absolutely necessary for human happiness and human flourishing.
I think the notion that there is inherent conflict between human happiness and absolute property rights is propaganda cooked up by the mid 20th century advocates of collectivism (Nazism, Fascism, Communism). I'm surprised that someone of your background would parrot this propaganda, given the suffering and horrors inflicted by such collectivism.
I also do not believe in the immortality offered by Christianity (as I consider all religion to be fraud). I believe we can achieve immortality only through our own efforts and productive accomplishment (e.g. biotechnological means and/or "uploaded"). I regard any attempt by religious or other organizations to prevent or suppress the development of such technology to be an existential threat to my future well-being and I believe in the right to respond appropriately to such threats.
Opposition to biotechnological life extension and other objectives of transhumanism as well as self-ownership is not the way to endear me to your religious ideas.
I regard absolute property rights as absolutely necessary for human happiness and human flourishing.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you do. But the marxists were also convinced that capitalism must be smashed in order to achieve human happiness. They were wrong. The sincerity which you hold your beliefs is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not those beliefs produce what you imagine they will. Your beliefs aren't wrong because I disagree with them but because even a cursory reflection on the relationship of property to society shows that there has to be some curtailment of property rights for the sake of the common good. It's not a question of my opinion but one of logic.
I consider all religion to be fraud
Well,then you go against the vast majority of Conservative. The odd man out in story of humanity is not the religious fanatic but the atheist.
Your beliefs aren't wrong because I disagree with them but because even a cursory reflection on the relationship of property to society shows that there has to be some curtailment of property rights for the sake of the common good.
ReplyDeleteThis is true. People certainly do not want a noisy, smelly factory near their homes. However, the absolute property right I was referring to is that of self-ownership, the ownership of one's life and body. And I believe very strongly that human happiness is impossible without this property right, which is the most fundamental property right of all.
You know, I always found it curious that people can believe in private property rights to own external objects such as cars and real estate, but not believe in ownerships of one's own body and life. This is paradoxical to me. I value my life and self FAR MORE than any external material objects.
The odd man out in story of humanity is not the religious fanatic but the atheist.
I don't care. Even though I consider myself to be "right wing", I have always despised the label "conservative". Viewed within the proper context of global human history, there is nothing "conservative" about free market capitalism, individual liberty, and technological innovation. Indeed, I consider these values to be the most revolutionary of all values.
Conservatism, as separate and distinct from libertarianism, is meaningless.
I am not a conservative. I am a revolutionary for free-market capitalism, individual liberty, and self-empowerment.
And, yes, I believe these values are necessary and sufficient to sustain technological civilization indefinitely.