There has never been a purely free market economic system, just as there has never been a purely communist system. However, we can rank economies and see whether ones that are closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum are better than ones that are closer to the communist end.
Let’s try it.
First, list countries according to whether they are closer to the free market or the communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank countries according to Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” report.
People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end — and enjoy far greater human rights protection.
According to the 2012 “Economic Freedom of the World” report by James Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Joshua Hall, nations ranking in the top quartile with regard to economic freedom had average per capita GDP of $37,691 in 2010 compared with $5,188 for those in the bottom quartile.
In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10% of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209.
Remarkably, the average income of the poorest 10% in the economically freer nations is more than twice the average of those in the least free nations.
Free market benefits aren’t only measured in dollars and cents.
Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free.
Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in unfree nations.
Leftists might argue that the free market doesn’t help the poor. That argument can’t even pass the smell test.
Imagine that you are an unborn spirit and God condemned you to a life of poverty but gave you a choice of the country in which to be poor. Which country would you choose?
To help with your choice, here are facts provided by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in their report “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor.”
Eighty percent of American poor households have air conditioning.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more.
Almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Half have one or more computers.
Forty-two percent own their homes.
The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K. Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry; in other words, they could afford food.
The bottom line is that there is little or no material poverty in the U.S.
At the time of our nation’s birth, we were poor, but we established an institutional structure of free markets and limited government and became rich.
This might be a good article send along to people who want to bash our free-market system. It’s easy for them to make assertions that we have to do this or that policy to redistribute wealth. But the real solution to helping the poor is not to take from one and give to another, it’s to put into place a system that causes wealth to be created for all. That’s what happened in the United States, and you can see how it happened in other capitalist economies like Chile, Hong Kong and Singapore. Capitalism turns poor nations into rich nations.
An interview with Dr. Michael Brown from Charisma News.
Intro:
Dr. Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. And on June 28, he’ll be directly debating Matthew Vines on Moody Radio’s program “Up for Debate.”
Matthew Vines has recently become the face of the current “gay Christian” movement, publishing God and the Gay Christian after his speech advocating Christian acceptance of homosexuality went viral in 2012.
Here’s a part I liked:
You have stated publicly that homosexual sin is a central, gospel issue. In my own life, I’ve known at least one person who has turned their back on the gospel because of the Bible’s stance on homosexuality and used Vines’ material to justify that decision. What words would you have for someone who has rejected Christianity over this issue?
Actually, what drew me into the this issue was the impact of homosexual activism on our society, but the more I talked with those who identify as LGBT and the more I read their stories—especially those who professed to be followers of Jesus—the more my heart broke for them.
So, it’s very painful to hear about your friend’s experience, but we’ll be hearing it more and more in the coming days. The problem is when I start with “me” and then go to the Word, I will be deceived; if I start with God and then go to “me,” I’ll find truth and freedom. Everyone needs to give himself or herself to Jesus unconditionally to be a disciple, and in doing so, we find the path to life. But if we say, “This is who I am, and God must satisfy my needs,” then we will create a new and alien faith.
What first prompted you to have an open debate with Vines?
To be perfectly clear, I’ve always been willing to have civil, public debates on any controversial issues of the faith that I’m focused on, which is why I’ve been debating rabbis for decades as a Jewish follower of Jesus. So, I’ve been open to debating Matthew or any other qualified representative of the “gay Christian” position for many years, and I’m pleased to have this opportunity through Moody Radio.
In fact, if Matthew feels that the one-hour radio format doesn’t allow us sufficient time to plumb the issues in sufficient depth, as a follow up to this radio debate, I’d love to help set up a formal, multi-hour debate where he could be joined by an academic colleague like Dr. James Brownson and I would be joined by Dr. James White, and we could spend a few hours together, in public, and recorded for the world to see on YouTube.
I feel that events like this radio debate and other types of fair, moderated debates can only advance the cause of truth.
What do you want this debate to accomplish?
By God’s grace, I want listeners to realize that there is zero scriptural support for the idea that God ever blesses or approves of committed, same-sex relationships, that homosexual practice is always sinful in His sight, that there is really no debate at all in term of what the Bible says. At the same time, I want listeners to realize how deeply God loves LGBT people, how Jesus shed the same blood for them and offers the same salvation to them, and how following Jesus unconditionally is the path to life and freedom.
I like Dr. Brown – he’s a good advocate for the cause of Christian morality.
I hope I don’t get my Christian manosphere credentials revoked, and I’m going to try very hard to explain why I am linking to this post by Matt Walsh below, in a disclaimers section.
But first, this:
It went from courting, to dating, to hanging out. Sometimes even hanging out reeks of too much commitment, in which case ‘talking’ can be used. And if talking sounds too serious, maybe we’ll start hearing ‘vicinitizing.’ That’s a word I just made up, and it means that you and your female friend are often in the same vicinity, but it doesn’t get all intense by insinuating that you’re actually in that general location together on purpose.
When did men become so afraid to make a commitment, to take the lead, to say what they want, to make long term plans, to set goals, to pursue, to talk about the future?
We are devolving into primates, losing the ability to even discuss our own behavior using words and sentences. The average single American man is now relegated to grunts and shrugs and ‘whatevers’ and ‘you knows’ when pressed to have a conversation about his dating habits. Or his vicinity habits. Or his whatever habits, because whatever, you know?
‘Hanging out’ is how we describe what we do with our buddies. Is that what you want? Do you want that beautiful woman to be your buddy? Or would you ideally prefer it if you could distinguish between your relationship with her and your relationship with your friend Steve?
And this, I really love this:
Then, one day, I met Alissa. She was looking for a grown man, and I was sick of playing games. We were both exhausted. So do you know what we did very early in our relationship?
We defined our terms.
We made our goals clear.
We were open with each other.
We spoke about the future.
We used words like ‘marriage.’
We were clear and convicted and purpose driven. I had ambitions for our relationship. Ambitions. I, like, had an idea about what I was doing and why I was doing it. Can you believe it? I was in it for a reason. I wanted it to become something.
See, I’d been floating like aimless debris through an ocean of cloudy intentions and half-heartedness, until I grew up and realized that romance isn’t a game, and most women aren’t frivolous bimbos. They want men who know what they want and aren’t afraid to verbalize it. And if they don’t want that, then they aren’t worth your energy. Get out now. If she still wants to pretend she’s in tenth grade, let her live that fantasy with someone else.
With Alissa, things were pretty clear from the get-go. We had a relationship. A real, live relationship. A few months into it, I proposed. Some people wait longer, which is fine. We’re all on our own schedule. But I promise you, despite popular sentiments, it doesn’t take a decade and a half to figure things out.
And finally this – I could not agree more, (but see my disclaimer below):
No matter what anyone does, or says, or thinks; no matter what we tell ourselves; no matter what society insists, romantic relationships are always serious business. Call it what you want — hanging out, talking, dating — there’s a woman’s heart involved in it. That means you have a responsibility, alright? You have a duty as a human being, as an adult, as a man.
She’s making herself vulnerable to you. You need to honor that, protect it. And if you aren’t looking for anything but cheap sex and another trophy of sexual conquest to hang on the wall in your studio apartment, then you need to protect her from yourself, because you’ll be bringing nothing but disappointment and chaos into her life.
Listen, there’s a lot of joy and love you’re missing out on when you spend years tumbling like a ball of weeds from one opaque hang out session to another. I know this from experience.
If you’re hanging out with a woman and you feel like you might be into her,tell her. Call her on the phone. Take her out on a date. Say the words: “I’d like to take you out.” No ambiguity. Plan the date yourself. Women want you to be decisive. Lose the whole “so waddaya wanna do tonight?” schtick. Take charge. Pick her up at 7. Pay for the meal. Have a conversation with her. Go mini golfing or something. Go somewhere. Open the door for her. Put your phone away. Open up to her. Share your ideas, your dreams, your fears. Get to know her. Pursue her. Pursue her. Invest yourself in the process, as scary and unsure as it may seem. Take a risk, gentlemen. Go out on a limb for once. Be purposeful. Be desirable. Be a man.
You wouldn’t go into a job interview and tell the interviewer that you aren’t sure if you want the job, and you don’t want to even talk about the job because it freaks you out and gives you a tummy ache, would you? So don’t do that to the women you’re dating, or hanging out with, or talking to, or whatever.
In the old days, they called it courting. It was a lot like dating, but with more of a point and less confusion. Maybe we should get back to that strategy.
Just this week, I was shown an e-mail from a man who has been very serious about a woman who has just swept him off his feet. He really likes her and has been very clear about his feelings for her. His long term goal for his relationship with her is marriage, and she knows that. He has been encouraging her to grow her skills and to pursue her dreams. BUT this is what she wrote to him in the e-mail I saw “Do not talk about marriage, or love. This makes me uncomfortable.” This is after 3 months! THREE MONTHS!
I was talking about marriage with one girl I was interested in on the FIRST meeting. And in the second meeting, she brought up John Piper’s questions for couples considering marriage – it didn’t bother me one bit. I was happy to have something serious to talk about with her. Just to check this out, I asked two of my co-workers what they thought. The first moved in with his girlfriend after a month, and married her within a year – they’ve now been married 19 years. The second was picking out engagement rings after a month of meeting his wife, was engaged 9 months later, and he’s been married to her for 29 years.
I agree with Matt that IF men are interested in a woman, THEN they should state their goals and talk about the future with her. But if the woman is very spontaneous, emotional, fun-loving, etc. and only wants to talk about surfing, skydiving, etc., then a man can’t be blamed for not bringing up marriage in that case.
Disclaimer
I want to be clear that this admonition to man up does not take away from anything that I’ve said about marriage being very, very dangerous for men. The fact of the matter is that marriage does not mean what it used to mean before feminism. To just give one quick example, no-fault divorce and anti-male divorce courts make marriage a really risky decision for a man. 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and they get full custody 90% of the time – with the child support and alimony. So I think that as long as we are talking about women who are politically conservative, into apologetics, frugal, chaste and a graduate of a STEM degree program, then men should be clear and direct and make the woman feel desired and safe. Otherwise… just stay clear of them.
WINTERY KNIGHT 