Comments on: Religion and Politics? http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/04/04/religion-and-politics/ The largest, most active political society in Cambridge University Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:25:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Hugo Hadlow http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/04/04/religion-and-politics/#comment-46 Hugo Hadlow Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:27:19 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=64#comment-46 An economics lesson: I agree that universal property ownership is a good thing. However, one of your justifications for it is false: "Property is also a wealth-generator- many families have more wealth stored in their pile of bricks than they do in their bank accounts, and more wealth can be created with rising house prices than through the 9 to 5 slog." This is bad economics. Property does not generate or create wealth. It is wealth. Wealth is the stuff we own, and the economy as a whole grows as we create more stuff. Intuitively, a house just sits there. It doesn't do anything. What you mean is that property generates income. Income is a flow of wealth. A property owner earns rent, but this doesn't necessarily make society any better off. No extra stuff has been created; just a transfer of money from one person to another. Similarly, you can make a lot of money if you're a property owner and house prices are rising. But no wealth has been created. All that's happening is the government is printing loads of money and most of it is going into the housing market; house prices are inflating faster than other things. So anyone who owns houses will become richer, and anyone who doesn't will become poorer. Society isn't better off as a whole. Another problem with government intervention. An economics lesson:

I agree that universal property ownership is a good thing. However, one of your justifications for it is false:

“Property is also a wealth-generator- many families have more wealth stored in their pile of bricks than they do in their bank accounts, and more wealth can be created with rising house prices than through the 9 to 5 slog.”

This is bad economics. Property does not generate or create wealth. It is wealth. Wealth is the stuff we own, and the economy as a whole grows as we create more stuff. Intuitively, a house just sits there. It doesn’t do anything.

What you mean is that property generates income. Income is a flow of wealth. A property owner earns rent, but this doesn’t necessarily make society any better off. No extra stuff has been created; just a transfer of money from one person to another. Similarly, you can make a lot of money if you’re a property owner and house prices are rising. But no wealth has been created. All that’s happening is the government is printing loads of money and most of it is going into the housing market; house prices are inflating faster than other things. So anyone who owns houses will become richer, and anyone who doesn’t will become poorer. Society isn’t better off as a whole. Another problem with government intervention.

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/04/04/religion-and-politics/#comment-44 Gavin Rice Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:51:00 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=64#comment-44 Amen to most of what you say in terms of what religion (and in particular, it has to be said, traditional Christianity) has to offer society in terms of moral robustness, responsibility, strong family values, expectations and duties as well as rights, and a less self-centred framework of objectives and desires. However, I'm very concerned that the new emerging approach to religion and "faith groups" in society is, although preferable to Dawkinsite broadsides against the churches, a little patronising: religion is seen as something peripheral and private but fairly benign, and to be tolerated so long as it doesn't conflict with the "moral" diktat of the state. Religion is not utility-based - religious people don't follow the faith because it is useful to them, or because religion somehow assists their way of life (possibly with the exception of New Age religions and the Westernised quasi-Buddhism of yuppies). Quite the opposite is true: believers are expected to derive their values from their faith, not from current social trends, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Individual morals must be made to conform to the requirements of one's religion, not vice versa. Of course I agree that the values of religion (and Christianity in particular) are "useful", in that they produce good results when put into practice, but that's not the reason why I follow them, and my beliefs about marriage and the family (the ones that are "useful" for the government) exist within a broader and interconnected moral framework that abhors much else that the state attempts to force us think is acceptable, and which contains much that would be objectionable to a modern touchy-feely Cameroon. From a turbulent (but not a priest), anti-abortion, "anti-gay" Bible-basher. Amen to most of what you say in terms of what religion (and in particular, it has to be said, traditional Christianity) has to offer society in terms of moral robustness, responsibility, strong family values, expectations and duties as well as rights, and a less self-centred framework of objectives and desires. However, I’m very concerned that the new emerging approach to religion and “faith groups” in society is, although preferable to Dawkinsite broadsides against the churches, a little patronising: religion is seen as something peripheral and private but fairly benign, and to be tolerated so long as it doesn’t conflict with the “moral” diktat of the state. Religion is not utility-based - religious people don’t follow the faith because it is useful to them, or because religion somehow assists their way of life (possibly with the exception of New Age religions and the Westernised quasi-Buddhism of yuppies). Quite the opposite is true: believers are expected to derive their values from their faith, not from current social trends, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Individual morals must be made to conform to the requirements of one’s religion, not vice versa. Of course I agree that the values of religion (and Christianity in particular) are “useful”, in that they produce good results when put into practice, but that’s not the reason why I follow them, and my beliefs about marriage and the family (the ones that are “useful” for the government) exist within a broader and interconnected moral framework that abhors much else that the state attempts to force us think is acceptable, and which contains much that would be objectionable to a modern touchy-feely Cameroon.

From a turbulent (but not a priest), anti-abortion, “anti-gay” Bible-basher.

]]>