Primate condemns idea that we can spend way out of crisis

thebigcheese22

Primate condemns idea that we can spend way out of crisis

GOVERNMENTS WHICH attempt to spend their way out of the economic crisis were sharply criticised yesterday by the Church of Ireland primate, Archbishop Alan Harper, who said such fiscal stimulus policies “must be abandoned”.

Addressing the Church of Ireland general synod, which opened in Armagh, he also spoke of the waste of donors’ money by non-governmental organisations and said there was “compelling evidence that international aid does not work well”.

He said what worried him about “quantitative easing” – in effect printing more money – and fiscal stimulus was “the extent to which these things are deliberately designed to generate more borrowing and more conspicuous consumption.

“That outlook, at least in part, led to the culture that pervaded the very model that crashed so spectacularly last year.”

Archbishop Harper said “that model depended upon an acceptance of the mantra of Gordon Gekko that ‘greed is good’, together with the doctrines that conspicuous consumption is essential and that secular individualism must be exalted above considerations of the commonwealth.

“Such guiding principles, for that is what they became, must be abandoned in constructing the world economy of the future. Those principles were creative of a society that tacitly approved selfishness and excluded those who were financially uncompetitive.”

Saying that “cuts in international aid budgets are deeply to be deplored”, he went on to speak of the “compelling evidence that international aid does not work well”.

“It tends to institutionalise dependency, keeping people alive but in continuing poverty, whilst, often disproportionately, benefiting donor governments and highly paid consultants. It has also gained an unenviable reputation for feeding corruption.”

He criticised waste on overheads by NGOs. “It concerns me that the generosity of people does not always seem to be matched by the cost effectiveness of some of the NGOs,” he said.

Aid agencies’ overheads, he said, should not cost more than 10 per cent of money donated “if they are to keep faith with [donors].”

Concern for the future of Protestant education in the Republic was expressed by a number of speakers at the synod yesterday. Archbishop

Harper said his belief was that “a significant majority of parents in both jurisdictions in Ireland favour the education of their children within a school shaped by the Christian religious ethos of their choice.”

He felt, however, that there should be “a policy imperative for all schools to create purposeful partnerships across all the perceived divides”.

He contended that “a deliberate policy of inclusivity through partnership could redress any perceived divisive effects of separated education.”

Such a policy would also go “a long way to addressing the other serious educational division in Northern Ireland, that between selective and nonselective schools in the secondary sector”, he said.

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the economic forum, but it's the principle that annoys me - wtf does a Bishop know about economics?? Fair enough if he had a degree in economics or something, but he's just spouting populist BS as far as I can see. Instead of quoting foremost economists, he quotes from a Hollywood movie! It's unbelievable that in this day and age, religious people still think they have influence on anything other than religious matters :eek: Stick to reading the Bible, not putting your oar in where you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. What would he favour, a Government like ours who is taxing and suppressing our economy into oblivion? I normally appreciate the fact that Church of Ireland tends to be less radical and bigoted as the CC but this has really got me annoyed :mad:

/rant

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I agree, how dare the man have an opinion.

thebigcheese22

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

I agree, how dare the man have an opinion.

You're hilarious... It's not the fact that he has a opinion on the matter, but the way he's using his religious title to impress that on people, despite not being qualified to comment on such a complex subject. This belongs to 50 years ago, not in the 21st century.

Dave!

I heard this on the radio yesterday and it made me go "wtf "

Does this guy know anything about economics?

I dunno why he'd come out with this, but more importantly, I don't know why it's being reported in the national media! Who the f*ck cares what the Church of Ireland primate has to say about the economy?

Nodin

Seeing as we don't have the money to adopt that policy, its really not that relevant....

Húrin

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

You're hilarious... It's not the fact that he has a opinion on the matter, but the way he's using his religious title to impress that on people, despite not being qualified to comment on such a complex subject. This belongs to 50 years ago, not in the 21st century.

So why do none of you guys complain that Richard Dawkins, a scientist, has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics without a degree in theology?

No, because someone lacks a piece of paper (degree), does not prove that they know nothing about the subject of another kind of piece of paper.

The primate seems to comment as much on the values of the economic models on offer as on their effects. That is his field. He isn't "impressing" or "imposing" his views on you. He's simply expressing them.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

So why do none of you guys complain that Richard Dawkins, a scientist, has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics without a degree in theology?

No, because someone lacks a piece of paper (degree), does not prove that they know nothing about the subject of another kind of piece of paper.

The primate seems to comment as much on the values of the economic models on offer as on their effects. That is his field. He isn't "impressing" or "imposing" his views on you. He's simply expressing them.

I would agree with Húrin here. He has as much a right as anyone to express an opinion on the economy, why anyone should listen to him is another matter. Much like celebrities people listen to church leaders for some strange reason, don't blame the celebrities or the churchmen blame the people who value their opinion.

Goduznt Xzst

I am sorely disappointed with this threads title. I was fully expecting to read that we'd progressed to taking economic advice from monkeys, but alas we are still only taking it from Bishops

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So why do none of you guys complain that Richard Dawkins, a scientist, has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics without a degree in theology?

No, because someone lacks a piece of paper (degree), does not prove that they know nothing about the subject of another kind of piece of paper.

The primate seems to comment as much on the values of the economic models on offer as on their effects. That is his field. He isn't "impressing" or "imposing" his views on you. He's simply expressing them.

wait wait wait ... are you saying Richard Dawkins knows something about religious discourse?

Dades

Ah, you lot with your blind faith in PhDs!

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

So why do none of you guys complain that Richard Dawkins, a scientist, has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics without a degree in theology?

Dawkins has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics? Last time I looked, he rubbished the whole lot -- no doubt in the same way that you rubbish the Norse gods without a degree Norsegodology.

Has Dawkins gone and converted or something? We should be told!!

garbanzo

I'm sure this is a very serious thread but I have to admit that I always end up thinking about a big monkey whenever I hear mention of "the primate of all Ireland". Sorry folks . . . I'm heading away to bed now :-)

philologos

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the economic forum, but it's the principle that annoys me - wtf does a Bishop know about economics?? Fair enough if he had a degree in economics or something, but he's just spouting populist BS as far as I can see. Instead of quoting foremost economists, he quotes from a Hollywood movie! It's unbelievable that in this day and age, religious people still think they have influence on anything other than religious matters :eek: Stick to reading the Bible, not putting your oar in where you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. What would he favour, a Government like ours who is taxing and suppressing our economy into oblivion? I normally appreciate the fact that Church of Ireland tends to be less radical and bigoted as the CC but this has really got me annoyed :mad:

/rant

Yes indeed, how dare a Christian leader have any opinion about the economy :eek:

Please note this section of your article:

Addressing the Church of Ireland general synod, which opened in Armagh, he also spoke of the waste of donors’ money by non-governmental organisations and said there was “compelling evidence that international aid does not work well”.

Who is he referring to? Anglicans (pastors, bishops, and lay people of the Church of Ireland). He's not advising the Government, or doing anything of the sort he's merely opening discussion to the General Synod which is where decisions about the Anglican Church in Ireland will be made for the year both North and South of the Border.

Again look more into his reasoning on the subject:

He said what worried him about “quantitative easing” – in effect printing more money – and fiscal stimulus was “the extent to which these things are deliberately designed to generate more borrowing and more conspicuous consumption.

Facilitating greed and debt is his gripe with it, and that is the understanding that the economic crisis started in in the first place. Might be a bit helpful to progress rather than regress on the issue.

Saying that “cuts in international aid budgets are deeply to be deplored”, he went on to speak of the “compelling evidence that international aid does not work well”.

Continuing on. The drop in giving to charitable projects and helping abroad could have an enormous impact on some areas of the world. I agree with him entirely. We need to be showing deference to the needy, they are even more needy now than they were before.

Aid agencies’ overheads, he said, should not cost more than 10 per cent of money donated “if they are to keep faith with [donors].”

Again fair enough. More money to the needy, less caught in bureaucracy. Seems reasonable to me.

What exactly was the issue with this OP is it merely because the speaker was a Bishop or was it due to the substance of what he was actually saying? He's spot on. We shouldn't be trying to get people in more debt than they already in, we should be encouraging generosity and not greed.

He never intended to have an influence, he was merely discussing the issues that are going to be challenging Christians and the Church of Ireland in the following year. This generally is what happens at a General Synod. Your post doesn't even seem to have much relevance to the actual segment you quoted.

CDfm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

You're hilarious... It's not the fact that he has a opinion on the matter, but the way he's using his religious title to impress that on people, despite not being qualified to comment on such a complex subject. This belongs to 50 years ago, not in the 21st century.

Wait a minute. How can you dis someone who uses Primate as a title in A+A???

CDfm

Dave! wrote: »

Does this guy know anything about economics?

I would hope for the sake of the C of E he does - most critics of churches cite their property holdings as a criticism - so it would make sence to have a person at the helm with a good head for figures.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

So why do none of you guys complain that Richard Dawkins, a scientist, has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics without a degree in theology?

I'd point out that comparing economics to theology is like comparing architecture to lego. One is a real discipline requiring actual expertise, the other is so simple a child can do it.

RealEstateKing

with him having an opinion on the state of the economy.

The part that pisses me off is the blaming of this whole economic mess on 'secular individualism'.

i.e. the reason that Ireland has gone off the rails is cause it strayed from God's Path. Somehow , it is being inferred , this economic mess is connected with people not being religious enough.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Dawkins has got into the field of religious discourse and apologetics? Last time I looked, he rubbished the whole lot -- no doubt in the same way that you rubbish the Norse gods without a degree Norsegodology.

Has Dawkins gone and converted or something? We should be told!!

Yes, Dawkins has single-handedly overturned the entire study of theology, and wrapped up all religious debates, forever. :rolleyes:

No, I mean to say that you guys do not rubbish him for taking up a position in the atheist camp in the field of religious discourse; while you criticise a churchman for taking a position in economics discourse.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

I'd point out that comparing economics to theology is like comparing architecture to lego. One is a real discipline requiring actual expertise, the other is so simple a child can do it.

Care to provide supporting evidence from an academic figure?

That is complete and utter shite. If it was as simple as that, degrees from respected universities would not exist in it. What do you have to back up your opinion, other than "I'm an atheist"? The fact that you don't like the idea of people studying theology does not make it any less valid a subject.

O'Coonassa

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

wtf does a Bishop know about economics??

More than our leaders by the sounds of it.

Printing more debt money seems like sheer madness, exactly what got us into the mess in the first place? Best place for this one would have been the economics forum. He was never going to get a fair hearing in A+A really was he?

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Care to provide supporting evidence from an academic figure?

I suppose I could track down that quote from Dawkins where he slams theology as a discipline if you like but I'm just giving my opinion here. Ah yes, here it is: "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

That is complete and utter shite. If it was as simple as that, degrees from respected universities would not exist in it. What do you have to back up your opinion, other than "I'm an atheist"? The fact that you don't like the idea of people studying theology does not make it any less valid a subject.

The fact that I don't like it is not what makes it less a valid subject, the fact that it's an entire discipline dedicated to studying the invented details surrounding an imaginary friend is what makes it not a valid subject. An observation made all the more painfully obvious when you compare to any real discipline, like economics or physics. Y'know, things that actually exist.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that I don't like it is not what makes it less a valid subject, the fact that it's an entire discipline dedicated to studying the invented details surrounding an imaginary friend is what makes it not a valid subject. An observation made all the more painfully obvious when you compare to any real discipline, like economics or physics. Y'know, things that actually exist.

The same argument could be leveled at other disciplines like literature, philosophy, art etc. None of which have any practical or verifiable value.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I mean to say that you guys do not rubbish him for taking up a position in the atheist camp in the field of religious discourse

Er, Dawkins doesn't have a position in religious discourse, other than frequently pointing out that the view that religious people have of their deity is propped up by the mostly amazingly selective reading of their holybooks. One doesn't need to have gone to a religious madrasah for years to notice that the bible or the quran is full of contradictions -- in fact, it seems to be one of the major functions of such places to convince people, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that there are no contradictions.

Húrin wrote: »

while you criticise a churchman for taking a position in economics discourse.

I haven't criticized him for taking a position -- the man (obvious jokes aside) can take whatever position he likes. But a position which is informed by a knowledge of economics would probably be a smarter choice than the uninformed and rather silly position he's chosen to adopt.

robindch

Mr Primate wrote:

He said what worried him about “quantitative easing” – in effect printing more money – and fiscal stimulus was “the extent to which these things are deliberately designed to generate more borrowing and more conspicuous consumption.

One assumes that the good Primate forgets that not everybody lives in a Bishop's Palace provided to him free of charge, and is therefore reduced to a state of "conspicuous consumption" in having to borrow money from the bank in order to a put a roof over one's own head.

Twit!

philologos

robindch wrote: »

One assumes that the good Primate forgets that not everybody lives in a Bishop's Palace provided to him free of charge, and is therefore reduced to a state of "conspicuous consumption" in having to borrow money from the bank in order to a put a roof over one's own head.

Twit!

conspicuous consumption - "buying expensive services and products in order to flaunt your wealth"

Do you consider a mortgage something to flaunt your wealth with?

You're adding your own assumptions to the actual article now. It's quite ridiculous. It makes perfect sense that people shouldn't be encouraged to spend on expensive products and services so as not to land them in further debt.

It seems that most of the posters here aren't really focusing on the actual content of what he is saying. Which is entirely spot on.

thebigcheese22

Jakkass wrote: »

conspicuous consumption - "buying expensive services and products in order to flaunt your wealth"

Do you consider a mortgage something to flaunt your wealth with?

You're adding your own assumptions to the actual article now. It's quite ridiculous. It makes perfect sense that people shouldn't be encouraged to spend on expensive products and services so as not to land them in further debt.

It seems that most of the posters here aren't really focusing on the actual content of what he is saying. Which is entirely spot on.

Back on the subject of economics...

He's saying that the Gov should cut spending further, how is that going to help the economy? Fair enough if the Gov is wasting money (which FF have been doing for 12 years) and that should be recitified (by a new government) but what's his solution? Raise taxes further and depress consumer confidence even more? I am the first to admit that the culture of greed as espoused by free for all capitalism is toxic and should be done away with. But that is entirely unrelated to the issue.

What we should be doing now is creating jobs and encouraging entrepreneurism. If that requires borrowing money, then so be it. In fact I think now is the best time to invest in infrastructure, schools etc because the construction of such infrastructure will be a fraction of the cost of when the economy recovers, and will also be providing valuable jobs (every job lost costs the Exchequer 18000 euro)

This man is not putting any valuable opinion towards improving our economy IMO, just populist spin.

And as for the grant aid. Surely we should be looking to cut out the corruption and setting clear objectives so that the money we give can't be abused. Withdrawing grants altogether is a 'tough love' policy which will just not work, and will leave thousands, millions that are starving now and relying on aid perhaps die. Surely that is against the so called Christian values of empathy and caring? (and please don't use the bit in the bible about giving a fishing rod instead of fish please!)


And btw I put it in A & A so we could discuss the merits of unqualified religious people who have great influence putting forward dubious economic theories which are populist and have no merit.

philologos

thebigcheese22: None of what you have just posted actually relates to what Alan Harper has actually said. I wonder did we actually read the same article. He's discussing greed vs charity, he isn't talking about Government policy. He's talking about how we as people can operate, not how the Government should be run. Most times people on here would say it would positive if church leaders don't get involved with State policy.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

conspicuous consumption - "buying expensive services and products in order to flaunt your wealth" Do you consider a mortgage something to flaunt your wealth with?

No, in general, I don't. However, the good Primate clearly does, since he's blaming the crisis on "conspicuous consumption" and, as is well known, the crisis was caused by a property bubble -- so one must assume that he thinks the two are the same. They are not, and the crisis was certainly not caused by people going out and buying a pound or two of bling or another bumper for their SUV.

Jakkass wrote: »

It makes perfect sense that people shouldn't be encouraged to spend on expensive products and services so as not to land them in further debt.

I agree. That's why the government has given money to the banks to get the interbank credit markets going again, and has not provided money -- as the primate seems to think -- for people with expensive tastes to purchase yet more tasteless junk.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems that most of the posters here aren't really focusing on the actual content of what he is saying. Which is entirely spot on.

The problem, such as it is, is that people are concentrating on what he's said, and it's just coming across as very uninformed indeed.

philologos

robindch: You interpreted "conspicuous consumption" as referring to a mortgage. Infact a mortgage doesn't even fit in with the defintiion of the term. You then assumed that this was actually what Alan Harper was actually saying even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that in the article!

bou

An economics forum would be a much better place to discuss the merits of his statement. As I see it, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or theology except from the point of view of considering how a society should run in an ethical manner.

He seems to be speaking from an interest in seeing a better society and concerned that government policy may not be leading in that direction. Yes, he doesn't sound terribly well informed on the subtleties of macro-economics (I'm not either) but if he is a position of influence and being listened to and has concerns then why can't he speak on his concerns and encourage debate of the issues?

I would be most happy if more people expressed an interest in the overall direction of social development and actively participated in debate. If we leave it all to the experts, who's to say that the experts won't be co-opted by powerful interests and persuaded to keep to the message that those interests want propagated. The current economic predicament seems to have resulted from too many media commentators and experts staying on-message saying that values only ever go up.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

You interpreted "conspicuous consumption" as referring to a mortgage. Infact a mortgage doesn't even fit in with the defintiion of the term. You then assumed that this was actually what Alan Harper was actually saying even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that in the article!

Well, nothing other than the straightforward chain of logic which I mentioned in my previous post (did you read it?)

Harper seems to hold to the weird view that borrowing money is a bad thing since doing it encourages something called "conspicuous consumption" which he said was "essential" to the "greed is good" system which crashed last year.

This is such a wonkily wrong view of what a modern economy is and how one operates, and especially what went wrong with it(*), that it would actually be quite funny, were it not apparently the point of view of a man who is respected by a reasonable chunk of the population.

(*) Basically, that some people made the mistake of assuming that property prices would go on increasing in the USA for the duration of certain time-limited credit insurance transactions. It's not quite as simple as that of course, but in one sentence, it's close enough.

.