Wrong: "We're desperate to believe in something. But bringing God into economics is risky | Eliza Filby"

This is a great article except that its conclusion is completely wrong.


Photo by ITV/REX (339740m)

Thatcherism: an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, a nod to the spiritual dangers of avarice, the Protestant work ethic, praise of the godly virtues of thrift and self-reliance and, finally, a divine justification for individual liberty and the free market. In short, Thatcherism always owed more to Methodism than to monetarism.
In the end, though, even she was prepared to admit she had failed in her crusade. When asked by Frank Field what her greatest regret in office was, she replied: “I cut taxes and I thought we would get a giving society, and we haven’t.” She was right. A survey conducted by the Charities Aid Foundation in 1989 revealed that those who gave the most to causes were not from the prosperous south but were disproportionately located in those areas that benefited least from the Thatcher boom.
... In private Thatcher used to rage against bankers and their bonuses. Why did they not follow the example of those in the army she would cry, which in her view was the model demonstration of responsibility to one’s fellow man.
Thatcherism laid the foundations for a culture in which individualism and self-reliance could thrive, but ultimately it created a culture in which only selfishness and excess were rewarded. Thatcher liked to quote John Wesley’s mantra, “Earn all you can, save all you can and give all you can,” and yet it was only ever the first instruction that was sufficiently encouraged. ...
... What the neoliberal experiment of the last 30 years teaches us is not that religion and politics do not mix, but that the politics of certainty is where danger lies.

Source: We’re desperate to believe in something. But bringing God into economics is risky | Eliza Filby | Comment is free | The Guardian.

It makes one feel for Margaret. She was a bleeding-heart libertarian, a contradiction in terms. I'm glad Eliza wrote it, but she's completely wrong that God is risky.

You see, it's very simple. Margaret simply didn't understand Christianity. Her "Christian" upbringing was wrong, as well-intentioned as it probably was.

Her religious education was self first and nothing, or very little, through the state. Real Christianity is others first and always and right from the start, with the "state" being Heaven (that government) come to the Earth. That's not capitalism! It's not Marxism either, far from it.

No, it's not risky to have God in economics. It's required.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.