Adam Smith penned Wealth of Nations prior to the colonial uprising in British North America. When the book was going to print, the First Continental Congress had just signed the Declaration of Indepence. On the surface, then, Smith's literary and economic endeavor had nothing to do with the War for American Independence. While certainly the leaders of the uprising could not have been influenced by Smith, certain concepts that Smith describes are certainly a cause of colonial discontent. One could argue that from an economic standpoint alone, the colonies were right to rebel.
Perhaps the most pertinent idea Smith promotes comes from Book 1 Chapter VII concerning monopolies and price. "The price of monopoly is upon every occasion, the highest that can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, is the lowest which can be taken...for any considerable time together". Smith had just finished explaining that when left alone, the market price of any good or service gravitates toward the natural price (which is the natural price one would get should they combine the costs of labor, land (resources) and profit). According to Smith's observations (and this is key...these are predictions, but observations on what truly happens in a market), market price is impacted by effectual demand and effectual supply. When left alone, demand and supply will cause the market price to alter from its "natural" state. The market price, then, always reflects the reality of demand, supply, and cost. Smith ensures the reader that a monopoly is different. Rather than naturally react to the effectual demand of the consumer, the monopolist ensures that supply remains low, to drive up demand and therefore price.
When we reflect on such a situation, we should be drawn immediately back to the situation in colonial North America. Smith observations on free competition and market forces could not influence British Parliamentary debates on colonial policy because they came to late. As early as the 1650s, Parliament began the process of regulating trade in the colonies severely. The Navigation Acts of 1660 mandated that only trade with British vessels was legal in the colonies. Thus colonial merchants couldn't sell their wares to French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, or any other foreign merchants. This greatly inhibited their ability to get a fair price for their wares. Likewise, colonists couldn't purchase foreign goods unless they were purchased from an English merchant (who came from England). This severely limited the ability of colonists to pay a decent price for almost anything. These acts are clearly monopolistic. A single entity (in this case, the government) is severely restricting supply and artificially regulating price well above its natural rate. Obviously, the colonists were bearing the brunt of such policies, while the lawmakers in Britain (most of whom had financial interests invested in these mercantile endeavors) benefited.
It is bad enough when one good or service is monopolized, but when every good or service is monopolized, conflict is bound to ensue. This atmosphere led to arguably the most well-known event in the pre-rebellion era: the Boston Tea Party. Parliament not only raised the price of tea, but forced all colonists to purchase their tea from one source: the East India Trading Co.. The Company had no significant holdings or presence in the North American colonies. Rather, to the East India Trading Co., the North American colonies were simply a market to manipulate. This incensed the colonial inhabitant of Boston, and thus, several men, dressed as American Indians, stormed the tea ship, and dumped the tea (still in its chests), overboard (there is some debate on whether the colonists were going to salvage the tea later, or if it was effectively ruined...that is of no concern here).
Consider the single phrase of Smith's: "The price of monopoly is upon every occasion, the highest that can be got." The colonists rightly recognized that their government was purposely limiting their ability to make a living, and purposefully limiting their ability to acquire necessities (and luxuries). It should have been obvious to the colonists that their government saw them not as individuals, but as mere means to an end. Parliament wasn't overly concerned with the lives of the people in their North American colonies; colonists were important only as long as they were consumers of British goods made available from British merchants. Could Parliament and the Crown really have expected anyless from the North American colonies?
Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Getting a groove on.
Since the day after Thanksgiving, it is customary for us at the Aukema to start playing Christmas music. This year is no different. Maura and Nolan love the music, and Maura will dance and dance and dance to it, especially the music to the Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky (which she loves since she saw Barishnikov's version on video). Someone else decided it'd be fun to dance:
Putting Christ in Christmas: A Reflection
I was reading this piece and I began to reflect on my past, our present, and our future.
Growing up, I was surrounded by this ethos of "Sunday is the Lord's Day". The routine was simple: we got up, went to sunday school and church, came home and ate a big family dinner, and then by the evening, we essentially went our separate ways. This wasn't universal, however. Never do I recall any religious imperative to go to any church service on Sunday morning. We did it because thats what you did, being a good Christian family, that is what you did, go to church on Sunday. I can't say that I always wanted to, but we went. But not always. Of course there were illnesses and weather problems: there were also Sundays in which we were travelling and at least once when we were older I remember my parents saying that we just weren't going. This ethos was engrained into me that Sundays and holidays (like Christmas and Easter) were special, and should not be routine. It wasn't Sunday or a Holy-day unless we went to church. Christmas was a special phenomenon for us, because being Methodist, we had our Christmas Eve service (which was always well attended, even by my Reformed family members from across town) and in the morning we almost always went to Christmas Day service at the Reformed church my dad grew up in. My church had, at least for a while, a Midnight Service, which my parent would go to as well. As a kid, I hated going to church on Christmas Day because we'd open our presents, get to play with them for about 20 minutes, and then have to get ready for church. However, growing up this way has stuck with me.
By the time I had married, going to church on Christmas Day wasn't as common as it used to be. Thus, it was a no-brainer when Christina and I decided that for Christmas, we'd go to Mass on Christmas Eve so we'd have more time on Christmas Day to relax. Then we moved to Billtown, and started attending my wife's childhood parish, where the folk-group sings for the 4:30pm "Vigil" Mass. The church seats about 700, but on that day, there'd be almost 1000. It was unbearable, and truly, it was hardly reverent or edifying (especially since half the people near you would chat during the whole thing). Now, with our three kids, we go to the 8am Mass at our new parish, before we open presents, before we eat breakfast.
At the 8am Mass, we don't see very many people. I've heard that the 10:30am Mass isn't very crowded either. Many parishes, for a while anyway, would offer three Masses on Christmas: two Vigil Masses, and one on Christmas Day. This seems odd to me now, and it seemed odd to me as a kid. I remember thinking more than once, "Hey, if Christmas is so special, why don't we have church on Christmas Day?" Not that I minded...not having a service meant that I didn't have to go on Christmas Day...cool.
The Church allows people who attend Vigil Masses and Saturday anticipation Masses to have them count toward their Obligation. This isn't a bad thing, because unfortunately in today's day and age, not everyone can have off Sunday. Having a Saturday evening Mass is quite a necessity now. Likewise, one can't assume that everyone has off for Christmas, so a Christmas Eve Mass is likewise a necessity. However, just because it is a necessity, doesn't mean it should be the norm. In the article mentioned above, John Baldovin, S.J. says "People want to get it out of the way. They want to have the morning of Christmas for opening presents." Is this what Christmas is all about, presents?
Of course, with a hectic visiting and preparation schedule, a Vigil Mass can be appreciated. Consider the case of my wife's grandmother, who annually hosts a Christmas Dinner for all of her local kids and grandkids. She attends the 4:30pm Mass on Christmas Eve, which allows her to spend Christmas preparing for the dinner. There are also those families that spend lots of time traveling, who would be extremely put out to attend Mass in the morning.
But "Once you allow for vigil Masses, however," said Fr. Baldovin, "there may be a good question to ask: Is convenience the most important consideration?" What is the reason we go to Mass: to get it out of the way, or to actually celebrate the Incarnation? Is our schedule the most important thing in our Christmas planning?
My own personal take...after years of hustle and bustle on Christmas (from a kids' perspective)...is that if your Christmas morning can't fit in time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, you've got it all wrong. When we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, we celebrate the real Reason for the Season: the Cross of our Salvation, the whole point of the Nativity. If that isn't your focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing...
Growing up, I was surrounded by this ethos of "Sunday is the Lord's Day". The routine was simple: we got up, went to sunday school and church, came home and ate a big family dinner, and then by the evening, we essentially went our separate ways. This wasn't universal, however. Never do I recall any religious imperative to go to any church service on Sunday morning. We did it because thats what you did, being a good Christian family, that is what you did, go to church on Sunday. I can't say that I always wanted to, but we went. But not always. Of course there were illnesses and weather problems: there were also Sundays in which we were travelling and at least once when we were older I remember my parents saying that we just weren't going. This ethos was engrained into me that Sundays and holidays (like Christmas and Easter) were special, and should not be routine. It wasn't Sunday or a Holy-day unless we went to church. Christmas was a special phenomenon for us, because being Methodist, we had our Christmas Eve service (which was always well attended, even by my Reformed family members from across town) and in the morning we almost always went to Christmas Day service at the Reformed church my dad grew up in. My church had, at least for a while, a Midnight Service, which my parent would go to as well. As a kid, I hated going to church on Christmas Day because we'd open our presents, get to play with them for about 20 minutes, and then have to get ready for church. However, growing up this way has stuck with me.
By the time I had married, going to church on Christmas Day wasn't as common as it used to be. Thus, it was a no-brainer when Christina and I decided that for Christmas, we'd go to Mass on Christmas Eve so we'd have more time on Christmas Day to relax. Then we moved to Billtown, and started attending my wife's childhood parish, where the folk-group sings for the 4:30pm "Vigil" Mass. The church seats about 700, but on that day, there'd be almost 1000. It was unbearable, and truly, it was hardly reverent or edifying (especially since half the people near you would chat during the whole thing). Now, with our three kids, we go to the 8am Mass at our new parish, before we open presents, before we eat breakfast.
At the 8am Mass, we don't see very many people. I've heard that the 10:30am Mass isn't very crowded either. Many parishes, for a while anyway, would offer three Masses on Christmas: two Vigil Masses, and one on Christmas Day. This seems odd to me now, and it seemed odd to me as a kid. I remember thinking more than once, "Hey, if Christmas is so special, why don't we have church on Christmas Day?" Not that I minded...not having a service meant that I didn't have to go on Christmas Day...cool.
The Church allows people who attend Vigil Masses and Saturday anticipation Masses to have them count toward their Obligation. This isn't a bad thing, because unfortunately in today's day and age, not everyone can have off Sunday. Having a Saturday evening Mass is quite a necessity now. Likewise, one can't assume that everyone has off for Christmas, so a Christmas Eve Mass is likewise a necessity. However, just because it is a necessity, doesn't mean it should be the norm. In the article mentioned above, John Baldovin, S.J. says "People want to get it out of the way. They want to have the morning of Christmas for opening presents." Is this what Christmas is all about, presents?
Of course, with a hectic visiting and preparation schedule, a Vigil Mass can be appreciated. Consider the case of my wife's grandmother, who annually hosts a Christmas Dinner for all of her local kids and grandkids. She attends the 4:30pm Mass on Christmas Eve, which allows her to spend Christmas preparing for the dinner. There are also those families that spend lots of time traveling, who would be extremely put out to attend Mass in the morning.
But "Once you allow for vigil Masses, however," said Fr. Baldovin, "there may be a good question to ask: Is convenience the most important consideration?" What is the reason we go to Mass: to get it out of the way, or to actually celebrate the Incarnation? Is our schedule the most important thing in our Christmas planning?
My own personal take...after years of hustle and bustle on Christmas (from a kids' perspective)...is that if your Christmas morning can't fit in time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, you've got it all wrong. When we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, we celebrate the real Reason for the Season: the Cross of our Salvation, the whole point of the Nativity. If that isn't your focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing...
Wealth of Nations: Division of Labor and Motivation
Book I Chapter 1 of Wealth of Nations revolves around the concept of the division of labor. Smith goes to lengths to demonstrate that dividing labor into smaller, more simple tasks results in greater production, and when coupled with specialization, results in higher quality. He argues that when people are left to their own devices, they will use their specialized knowledge and skills cooperatively and everyone benefits. This reflects the more accurate view of humanity that man was created "good", and although we are fallen, we are still made in the image of God. However accurately Smith's ideas of the division of labor reflect human nature, Smith's picture of the division of labor does not completely mesh with human nature.
In his depiction of the efficiency of the division of labor, Smith mentions two phenomenon which would put a bitter taste in some one's mouth. For one, Smith refers to "making this business into some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life." I understand completely what Smith is referring to: taking a complex task (like making cabinets), and breaking it down into simpler operations. One person will be dedicated to running each operation, and that is all they are responsible for. But this is what that boils down to: instead of making the whole of the cabinet, one person is responsible for cutting the wood for the doors, another for assembling the doors, and another for assembling the whole thing. How can such an operation be good for the human person? Your sole means of employ is doing a single, simple task. While a worker may take pride in their work initially, how long before they begin to get bored with cutting wood, day in and day out? A dissatisfied worker is an unproductive or poor worker, so while the number of products produced increase, the quality will diminish, as the worker puts in his time and goes home.
Immediately preceding that phrase, Smith talks about a hypothetical country farmer who also weaves. He mentions that as a weaver, his farming hinders how much weaving gets done, and as a farmer, his weaving hinders his farm's functioning. Those are good points: a weaver who likes to work the ground and grow things hinders his ability to make a living from his trade. But what about the farmer who simply enjoys weaving, or the weaver who enjoys farming? Perhaps their excursions into "side activities" isn't really for economic production, but to do something they enjoy.
These two points go together. As the division of labor turns complex jobs into a series of simple tasks, there will be those laborers who maintain a "side profession" to maintain their happiness. It could be postulated that this is how craftsmen endure. There are still craftsmen who exist not for the profit, but for the pure enjoyment of the task. As an example, exploring the homes of Victorian America, one will find certain features that are all but extinct on modern houses. For example, it was customary for the porches of Victorian homes to be decorated with ginger breading, and the arches between rooms would have bent trim around them. Such practices require skill and time, to be sure, but even the domiciles of well-to-do Americans in the late 20th and 21st Centuries are lacking such examples of craftsmanship. However, there still exist craftsmen who operate solely for two motivations: their love of Victorian architecture and the their love of quality craftsmanship. Some, including a few I have talked to, are turned off by "assembly line production", and would rather put their own personal stamp on each piece they produce.
Herein lies another problem with Smith's depiction of the division of labor: Smith is focusing on the communal aspect, which is important because it is part of the human condition: humans are not simply individuals, but are part of a larger whole (or several larger wholes). However, humans are simply collective: they exist individually, and never can it be said that the whole is more important or greater than the individual. This focusing on the whole to the neglect of the individual is what brings up the problems noted above.
In his depiction of the efficiency of the division of labor, Smith mentions two phenomenon which would put a bitter taste in some one's mouth. For one, Smith refers to "making this business into some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life." I understand completely what Smith is referring to: taking a complex task (like making cabinets), and breaking it down into simpler operations. One person will be dedicated to running each operation, and that is all they are responsible for. But this is what that boils down to: instead of making the whole of the cabinet, one person is responsible for cutting the wood for the doors, another for assembling the doors, and another for assembling the whole thing. How can such an operation be good for the human person? Your sole means of employ is doing a single, simple task. While a worker may take pride in their work initially, how long before they begin to get bored with cutting wood, day in and day out? A dissatisfied worker is an unproductive or poor worker, so while the number of products produced increase, the quality will diminish, as the worker puts in his time and goes home.
Immediately preceding that phrase, Smith talks about a hypothetical country farmer who also weaves. He mentions that as a weaver, his farming hinders how much weaving gets done, and as a farmer, his weaving hinders his farm's functioning. Those are good points: a weaver who likes to work the ground and grow things hinders his ability to make a living from his trade. But what about the farmer who simply enjoys weaving, or the weaver who enjoys farming? Perhaps their excursions into "side activities" isn't really for economic production, but to do something they enjoy.
These two points go together. As the division of labor turns complex jobs into a series of simple tasks, there will be those laborers who maintain a "side profession" to maintain their happiness. It could be postulated that this is how craftsmen endure. There are still craftsmen who exist not for the profit, but for the pure enjoyment of the task. As an example, exploring the homes of Victorian America, one will find certain features that are all but extinct on modern houses. For example, it was customary for the porches of Victorian homes to be decorated with ginger breading, and the arches between rooms would have bent trim around them. Such practices require skill and time, to be sure, but even the domiciles of well-to-do Americans in the late 20th and 21st Centuries are lacking such examples of craftsmanship. However, there still exist craftsmen who operate solely for two motivations: their love of Victorian architecture and the their love of quality craftsmanship. Some, including a few I have talked to, are turned off by "assembly line production", and would rather put their own personal stamp on each piece they produce.
Herein lies another problem with Smith's depiction of the division of labor: Smith is focusing on the communal aspect, which is important because it is part of the human condition: humans are not simply individuals, but are part of a larger whole (or several larger wholes). However, humans are simply collective: they exist individually, and never can it be said that the whole is more important or greater than the individual. This focusing on the whole to the neglect of the individual is what brings up the problems noted above.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Family update!!!
On Saturday, I took Nolan and Colleen to the library. Maura couldn't go. It is customary for Nolan to get some stuffed puppets. When we got there, the first thing he wanted to do was to get a mouse puppet for Maura and a snake puppet for him. Of course, the first thing we always do is get books, then movies and music...then we do the other things. When the time came, Nolan went immediately in search of a mouse for Maura.
Fastforward to later. We get home and Nolan immediately searches Maura out, not even taking his coat off. He hands her the mouse and says, "Here Maura, I got you a mouse!". Maura responds with a "Thank you Nolan." I am watching this whole scene thinking nothing of it. Nolan has a tendancy to do that, so this is nothing new, right? Christina then informs me that the last time they went to the library, Maura desperately wanted a puppet, but Nolan had already got two (we only get two at a time...lest they get lost). Christina said she could get it next time. Turns out that Nolan remembered that and made sure to get the Maura.
What a kid!
Fastforward to later. We get home and Nolan immediately searches Maura out, not even taking his coat off. He hands her the mouse and says, "Here Maura, I got you a mouse!". Maura responds with a "Thank you Nolan." I am watching this whole scene thinking nothing of it. Nolan has a tendancy to do that, so this is nothing new, right? Christina then informs me that the last time they went to the library, Maura desperately wanted a puppet, but Nolan had already got two (we only get two at a time...lest they get lost). Christina said she could get it next time. Turns out that Nolan remembered that and made sure to get the Maura.
What a kid!
Christmas Thoughts
Every year, celebration of Christmas is different. About three years ago, I attended a 4pm Christmas Vigil Mass at St. Boniface. The 4pm Christmas Eve Mass is the Mass that the Folk-Group plays at. Despite the fact that such an ensemble is contrary to the spirit of the liturgy, and all but forbidden by Holy Church, I must admit that this particular group is very good at what they do. It is no surprise that that particular Mass is standing room only. It was during that Mass that I broke down and wept during the Consecration: more than half of the people there didn't really grasp 1) what was being celebrated, and 2) what was going on in front of them. That thought focused my Christmas celebration into the next few days.
Two years ago, I read in the Office of Readings, as well as in His Excellency Martino's Respect Life Sunday Pastoral Letter, about the dignity of the human person, and how, by virtue of the Incarnation, human dignity has been elevated. It was this thought that guided my Christmas preparations.
Last year, as DRF of Neumann, I was able to get into it a little more, and a little differently. Our textbook for the 10th Graders discussed bias in the Bible: the Bible was certainly biased: it tells Salvation History from God's perspective, and thus all of History is focused around the person of Jesus Christ. This was made even more poignant as I read a beautiful reflection written by one of my students (after Christmas, but during the Christmas season). Christmas was essentially the celebration of the whole crux of history. While the Paschal Triduum celebrates the salvific act that enables us to be with GOD, it is Christmas that celebrates the coming of GOD to earth in the Incarnation (which makes the Paschal Sacrifice possible).
This year, I am finding it incredibly hard. 2010 has been rife with struggles. From losing my job for no reason, not being able to get a job for over six months, and finally getting a job which has all but wrecked the family, it is tough to think about "the reason for the season". In the oilfield, there is no season. There is no time for family, no time for friends, no time for faith. There is work, work, work and sleep. Perhaps God will shine some light on us in 2011. We certainly need it.
Two years ago, I read in the Office of Readings, as well as in His Excellency Martino's Respect Life Sunday Pastoral Letter, about the dignity of the human person, and how, by virtue of the Incarnation, human dignity has been elevated. It was this thought that guided my Christmas preparations.
Last year, as DRF of Neumann, I was able to get into it a little more, and a little differently. Our textbook for the 10th Graders discussed bias in the Bible: the Bible was certainly biased: it tells Salvation History from God's perspective, and thus all of History is focused around the person of Jesus Christ. This was made even more poignant as I read a beautiful reflection written by one of my students (after Christmas, but during the Christmas season). Christmas was essentially the celebration of the whole crux of history. While the Paschal Triduum celebrates the salvific act that enables us to be with GOD, it is Christmas that celebrates the coming of GOD to earth in the Incarnation (which makes the Paschal Sacrifice possible).
This year, I am finding it incredibly hard. 2010 has been rife with struggles. From losing my job for no reason, not being able to get a job for over six months, and finally getting a job which has all but wrecked the family, it is tough to think about "the reason for the season". In the oilfield, there is no season. There is no time for family, no time for friends, no time for faith. There is work, work, work and sleep. Perhaps God will shine some light on us in 2011. We certainly need it.
Wealth of Nations: the Real Price of Things
In Chapter IV of Book I, Adam Smith discusses price. In the midst of his discussion, he states that the real price of any good or service is labor. This is an incredibly important statement and concession we must consider.
To begin, Smith equates how much a good or service really costs with how much time, energy, and work went into providing the good or service. For example, the real cost of a house is not necessarily the market price, which fluctuates from month to month and is linked to the value of the money denomination. Rather, the real price is the labor that went into preparing the land, obtaining and refining the supplies, manufacturing the windows, doors, etc, the designing and planning of the house, and finally the actual building of the house...including all the man-hours it took to construct it. Unlike monetary price which shifts, the cost in labor does not. It takes just as much labor to build a house now as it did a few years ago.
The question then arises: who cares? Smith concedes that finding a means to quantify the real cost (in terms of labor) is nigh impossible. That doesn't mean, though, that the notion can be discounted: just because something cannot be quantified or empirically noted does not mean it does not exist. The notion that there exists a real cost of something that can not be quantified reflects the notion that there exist certain things that are truly real, but not quite tangible. Such principles can include the concept of right and wrong. Just like we can haggle over monetary price based on our own proclivities, so can we haggle over right and wrong based on our own proclivities. However, such an analogy requires us to concede that no matter what monetary price we agree upon, there is still a real, absolute cost in terms of labor, which then means that no matter what we decided is right and wrong, there is still an absolute reality. In this regard, one can draw another conclusion: just like monetary prices should accurately reflect the REAL cost, so too must our actions reflect what is REALLY right. The farther our decisions are from reality, the worse the consequences.
The idea that the a good or service is really worth the labor it costs to provide also sheds light on the true nature of economic transactions. Despite the insinuations of Marx and Engels on the one end and Ayn Rand on the other, economic transactions are not about the material gain one obtains from them, but about the humans behind them. Like the nominal, or monetary value, economic transactions have a tangible consequence, something that people can materially relate too. Continuing the analogy, then, like the real value of a good or service, economic transactions have a real value, one that transcends the tangible and material.
Smith then, is proposing an economic model that, despite the discussions on money, and wealth, and material benefits, is essentially about humanity. This is contrary to the materialist aims of Marx, Engels, and Rand. As stated above, the farther our decisions (or attitudes) are from reality, the worse the consequences. Considering this, it is easy to see how the materialism of capitalists like Rand and communists like Engels and Marx can lead to extensive human suffering. Advocates of both views have trivialized the economic into simply the material. When this happens, humanity becomes nothing more than disposable capital, or exploitable resources.
To begin, Smith equates how much a good or service really costs with how much time, energy, and work went into providing the good or service. For example, the real cost of a house is not necessarily the market price, which fluctuates from month to month and is linked to the value of the money denomination. Rather, the real price is the labor that went into preparing the land, obtaining and refining the supplies, manufacturing the windows, doors, etc, the designing and planning of the house, and finally the actual building of the house...including all the man-hours it took to construct it. Unlike monetary price which shifts, the cost in labor does not. It takes just as much labor to build a house now as it did a few years ago.
The question then arises: who cares? Smith concedes that finding a means to quantify the real cost (in terms of labor) is nigh impossible. That doesn't mean, though, that the notion can be discounted: just because something cannot be quantified or empirically noted does not mean it does not exist. The notion that there exists a real cost of something that can not be quantified reflects the notion that there exist certain things that are truly real, but not quite tangible. Such principles can include the concept of right and wrong. Just like we can haggle over monetary price based on our own proclivities, so can we haggle over right and wrong based on our own proclivities. However, such an analogy requires us to concede that no matter what monetary price we agree upon, there is still a real, absolute cost in terms of labor, which then means that no matter what we decided is right and wrong, there is still an absolute reality. In this regard, one can draw another conclusion: just like monetary prices should accurately reflect the REAL cost, so too must our actions reflect what is REALLY right. The farther our decisions are from reality, the worse the consequences.
The idea that the a good or service is really worth the labor it costs to provide also sheds light on the true nature of economic transactions. Despite the insinuations of Marx and Engels on the one end and Ayn Rand on the other, economic transactions are not about the material gain one obtains from them, but about the humans behind them. Like the nominal, or monetary value, economic transactions have a tangible consequence, something that people can materially relate too. Continuing the analogy, then, like the real value of a good or service, economic transactions have a real value, one that transcends the tangible and material.
Smith then, is proposing an economic model that, despite the discussions on money, and wealth, and material benefits, is essentially about humanity. This is contrary to the materialist aims of Marx, Engels, and Rand. As stated above, the farther our decisions (or attitudes) are from reality, the worse the consequences. Considering this, it is easy to see how the materialism of capitalists like Rand and communists like Engels and Marx can lead to extensive human suffering. Advocates of both views have trivialized the economic into simply the material. When this happens, humanity becomes nothing more than disposable capital, or exploitable resources.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Family update
So, last week, I substitute taught for Christina, whose plans for Nolan went something like this: "Everything that Maura is doing, plus start blending letters and sounds." Dutifully getting through as much as I could prior to going to work, I sat down with Nolan to begin this whole blending thing. In about five minutes, we'd gone through the "-at", -"as", and "-ap" families, and put different consonants in front of them. With a little coaching, he got them all.
Fastforward to yesterday afternoon. After the normal greetings to one and all, I am greeting with this incredulous statement: "YOU DIDN'T TELL ME NOLAN CAN READ!!!!" So apparently during school, Christina sat down to do blending with him again. According to Christina, the interaction went something like this: "What's this word?" "Map." "What about this one? "Cap." "This one?" "Mat." The last one, apparently was given in the tone "Stop boring me and let me get back to playing with my dinosaurs which are eating playdough." There was no instruction necessary, he just did it...with the attitude that he could do it all along, so whats the big deal? This is the same kid who for months couldn't care less about writing his name and then all of a sudden with no practice just wrote it.
In the meantime, Maura, who thoroughly HATES handwriting was eager to write Cinderella loves Christmas! and Aurora is pretty. She did both beautifully, and unfortunately, she has better handwriting than I do. Oh, she'll be moving on to First Grade Math within the month, too.
And while that is going on, Colleen is cutting her first tooth. Apparently her teeth finally realized that they were needed, because, you see, she's been eating solid food since she was six months old...remember she skipped right over the whole processed babyfood thing.
Fastforward to yesterday afternoon. After the normal greetings to one and all, I am greeting with this incredulous statement: "YOU DIDN'T TELL ME NOLAN CAN READ!!!!" So apparently during school, Christina sat down to do blending with him again. According to Christina, the interaction went something like this: "What's this word?" "Map." "What about this one? "Cap." "This one?" "Mat." The last one, apparently was given in the tone "Stop boring me and let me get back to playing with my dinosaurs which are eating playdough." There was no instruction necessary, he just did it...with the attitude that he could do it all along, so whats the big deal? This is the same kid who for months couldn't care less about writing his name and then all of a sudden with no practice just wrote it.
In the meantime, Maura, who thoroughly HATES handwriting was eager to write Cinderella loves Christmas! and Aurora is pretty. She did both beautifully, and unfortunately, she has better handwriting than I do. Oh, she'll be moving on to First Grade Math within the month, too.
And while that is going on, Colleen is cutting her first tooth. Apparently her teeth finally realized that they were needed, because, you see, she's been eating solid food since she was six months old...remember she skipped right over the whole processed babyfood thing.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Reading is fundAmental: why homeschooling rocks
There are various reasons to homeschool versus sending your children to a public or non-public school. There is the obvious fact that in public and non-public schools, education takes a seat for socialization. Sometimes, that socialization isn't optimal. Of course, many people homeschool for religious reasons, and some don't trust their local public schools and can't afford a non-public school. Then there's Maura and Nolan.
Maura is nearly finished with her Kindergarten reading and math curricula. She is reading wonderfully, and is picking up new skills every day. We haven't been able to get her to read easy-readers on a regular basis, but wow, she's picking it up fast! She loves math, and is eager to learn more and more. Nolan isn't too far behind, however. While not yet reading, Christina has started him with blending letters to make new sounds. In addition, he's even beginning Maura's kindergarten math workbook.
Nolan and Maura are of course, different styles. Maura is easily distracted, while Nolan can focus on something he's got his little mind on for a while (that doesn't mean he sits still during that time, though). This creates a problem, because while Nolan is working on whatever he's working on, Maura is watching him. When you get them one-on-one, however, they are both very productive.
What is so neat about this arrangement is that we can move at a more natural pace, we allow them to learn at their own pace in a way that flows naturally. While we provide a structure to the learning process, we aren't pushing anything. Maura has always loved "school". She loved doing "letters/ABCs" with Christina before she went to school, and she even asks to do school now. Nolan, on the other hand, would be diagnosed with ADD already at 3. He's everywhere (including walking on the window sills). Get him one-on-one and he'll do great. We just started him on Maura's kindergarten math workbook, and he flew through the first unit...at 3. He loves it. The key is we are letting them work on their own pace. Nolan really isn't concerned with writing (he just recently wrote his name, with no practice and no prompting), and he is perfectly content for us to read to him.
As teacher, I've seen how the curriculum can drive education. What to teach, when to teach it is crucial to the modern school, but what isn't crucial is whether or not the individual children can handle it at that time. Homeschooling allows the child's needs to be met, not the school's or the state's.
Maura is nearly finished with her Kindergarten reading and math curricula. She is reading wonderfully, and is picking up new skills every day. We haven't been able to get her to read easy-readers on a regular basis, but wow, she's picking it up fast! She loves math, and is eager to learn more and more. Nolan isn't too far behind, however. While not yet reading, Christina has started him with blending letters to make new sounds. In addition, he's even beginning Maura's kindergarten math workbook.
Nolan and Maura are of course, different styles. Maura is easily distracted, while Nolan can focus on something he's got his little mind on for a while (that doesn't mean he sits still during that time, though). This creates a problem, because while Nolan is working on whatever he's working on, Maura is watching him. When you get them one-on-one, however, they are both very productive.
What is so neat about this arrangement is that we can move at a more natural pace, we allow them to learn at their own pace in a way that flows naturally. While we provide a structure to the learning process, we aren't pushing anything. Maura has always loved "school". She loved doing "letters/ABCs" with Christina before she went to school, and she even asks to do school now. Nolan, on the other hand, would be diagnosed with ADD already at 3. He's everywhere (including walking on the window sills). Get him one-on-one and he'll do great. We just started him on Maura's kindergarten math workbook, and he flew through the first unit...at 3. He loves it. The key is we are letting them work on their own pace. Nolan really isn't concerned with writing (he just recently wrote his name, with no practice and no prompting), and he is perfectly content for us to read to him.
As teacher, I've seen how the curriculum can drive education. What to teach, when to teach it is crucial to the modern school, but what isn't crucial is whether or not the individual children can handle it at that time. Homeschooling allows the child's needs to be met, not the school's or the state's.
The Ban and Subsequent Interpretations
I was reading through Msgr. Pope's reflections on atheists ads in the DC area here. I came across a comment concerning the Ban, in which God commanded the Israelites destroy the Amalekites, every man, woman, and child, including animals. The commenter didn't feel comfortable with ALMIGHTy GOD decreeing that an entire people be wiped out. I have two two different sets of thoughts on this, with ultimately the same conclusion.
Thought One
It wouldn't be the first time an entire group of people would be wiped out. We know of the Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorrah, in which God rained down sulfur and brimstone and destroyed the evil cities. We also know of the mysterious disappearance of the colony of Roanoake Island, not to mention the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Legends abound about the civilization of Atlantis. In our modern world, we have seen the devestation wrought by such forces as tidal waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like (which are called on insurance claims "Acts of God"). We have no trouble attributing the destruction of cities or peoples to God directly (or indirectly through nature), but we throw up our hands and say "God couldn't have commanded the Israelites to wipe a group of people!"
Why not? Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do? The same commenter was loath to attribute "objective evil" to a command of God's, when according to that self-same logic, God was directly guilty of that same objective evil when He destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah. I would trust that God knew what He was doing, because HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD!! As the Psalmist says in Psalm 95: "It is He who made us and we are His."
Thought Two
The idea that the Ban was simply an Israelite misunderstanding on what God wanted is appealing, but ultimately, it is patently false. The theory goes something like this: for cultural reasons, miscommunication, or just plain stupidity, the Israelites misinterpreted God's command toward the Amalekites to mean complete and total annhilation. Sounds plausible, given the subsequent track record of the Israelites on obedience to ALMIGHTY GOD.
However, if this is indeed accurate, what of Saul's disobedience, when he does not follow the Ban, but instead chooses his own path? He is clearly reprimanded for lack of obedience. And what of God's command to "have no other gods before" Him, or "do not commit adultery"? I am sure that the Israelites just misunderstood what God meant when they set up Asherah poles...and consequently got overrun by Midians and the like in Judges. Oh, and David must have really, really, really, deep-down misunderstood that whole "do not commit adultery" thing when he slept with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover it up!!! No. In both those cases, the Israelites and David repented of their disobedience.
These other cases show us that God's commands, when explicitly given in Scripture, are accurate, not misunderstood. The Israelites, David, and Saul all knew precisely what GOD had commanded, and chose to either obey or disobey. If Scripture is wrong in this regard, was it also wrong when God said "do not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill"? This is ultimate end to this argument, and I believe, the ultimate end to any attempt to "explain away" Scripture in this regard.
This is why I reject completely and totally the "Marcan Priority" arrangment of Gospel authorship, but that is a post for another day.
Thought One
It wouldn't be the first time an entire group of people would be wiped out. We know of the Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorrah, in which God rained down sulfur and brimstone and destroyed the evil cities. We also know of the mysterious disappearance of the colony of Roanoake Island, not to mention the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Legends abound about the civilization of Atlantis. In our modern world, we have seen the devestation wrought by such forces as tidal waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like (which are called on insurance claims "Acts of God"). We have no trouble attributing the destruction of cities or peoples to God directly (or indirectly through nature), but we throw up our hands and say "God couldn't have commanded the Israelites to wipe a group of people!"
Why not? Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do? The same commenter was loath to attribute "objective evil" to a command of God's, when according to that self-same logic, God was directly guilty of that same objective evil when He destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah. I would trust that God knew what He was doing, because HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD!! As the Psalmist says in Psalm 95: "It is He who made us and we are His."
Thought Two
The idea that the Ban was simply an Israelite misunderstanding on what God wanted is appealing, but ultimately, it is patently false. The theory goes something like this: for cultural reasons, miscommunication, or just plain stupidity, the Israelites misinterpreted God's command toward the Amalekites to mean complete and total annhilation. Sounds plausible, given the subsequent track record of the Israelites on obedience to ALMIGHTY GOD.
However, if this is indeed accurate, what of Saul's disobedience, when he does not follow the Ban, but instead chooses his own path? He is clearly reprimanded for lack of obedience. And what of God's command to "have no other gods before" Him, or "do not commit adultery"? I am sure that the Israelites just misunderstood what God meant when they set up Asherah poles...and consequently got overrun by Midians and the like in Judges. Oh, and David must have really, really, really, deep-down misunderstood that whole "do not commit adultery" thing when he slept with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover it up!!! No. In both those cases, the Israelites and David repented of their disobedience.
These other cases show us that God's commands, when explicitly given in Scripture, are accurate, not misunderstood. The Israelites, David, and Saul all knew precisely what GOD had commanded, and chose to either obey or disobey. If Scripture is wrong in this regard, was it also wrong when God said "do not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill"? This is ultimate end to this argument, and I believe, the ultimate end to any attempt to "explain away" Scripture in this regard.
This is why I reject completely and totally the "Marcan Priority" arrangment of Gospel authorship, but that is a post for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)